austin3515

From EPCRS Appendix A .05(2)(b) "Under this correction method, a plan may not be treated as two separate plans, one covering otherwise excludable employees and the other covering all other employees (as permitted in §1.410(b)-6(b)(3)) in order to reduce the applicable ADP, the corresponding missed deferral, and the required QNEC". This has always made my mind bend in uncomfortable directions because testing everyone together (i.e., not testing OE's separately) always reduces the ADP for the NHCE's and thus reduces the correction. I am never excluding the otherwise excludables "in order to reduce the corection." Excluding the otherwise excludables would INCREASE the correction? Is it possible the authors just don't know anything about running ADP tests?

Anyone have any idea when this will actually hit ?They seemed to be discussing it in the ciontext of 2021 5500s?

You bet, that's it!

Can someone send me a link to the DOL proposal to limit audits to those participants who have balances in the plan? Apparently there was a comment window that closed in November 2021 or something. Someone mentioned it to me but I cannot find anything on google.

The problem is that it will vary from month to month because of the floating interest rates. They gave us a calculator to make sure that if $100 is late to the plan they get every penny of interest (both of them). But helping people project income to retirement? "Oh just modify a mortality table for an interest rate adjustment. Didn't you learn anything in elementary school?"

Right?? Why isn't that an obvious necessity??

yeah that's not practical for my nonactuarial mind 😂 If there was a table I could download once a month from actuaries.com or something with the factors now we're talking about my skill set! I see now that the interest that needs to be used will fluctiate so the APRs will fluctuate. Seems nuts that the DOL wouldn't issue an RMD factor style table for this. What is John Doe the Plumber supposed to do if his money is in Fidelity brokerage accounts?

The more I think about it, the crazier it seems that there are not "safe harbor tables" that we can all use. It seems to me that there should be consistency from plan to plan to make sure there are apples to apples comparisons. One person with $10,000 in 2 separate 401k plans might be told 2 very different things about wwhat their monthly income might be... Especially if the interest assumptions are quite different and the employee is young.

Is anyone aware of where I can get my hands on a table to calculate the lifetime income figures? I have a couple of plans where we're not using Relius, so I want to be able to calculate the disclosures manually. Anyone know where I can get those tables? I mean they must be out there somewhere...

Actually the term "loan offset" is defined in "1.72(p)-1 - Loans treated as distributions" so I am feeling much much more confident in the availibility of this correction option.

If a participant terminated let's say in July 2021 and made no further payments on the loan, but the loan was not reported on a 2021 1099-R, can the EMployer report under a 2022 1099-R under EPCRS? I think yes. The program indicates that this is an option in the event of a "deemed distribution under 72(p)." Even though this is a loan offset when I look at 72(p) it seems sufficiently broad to conclude that what I describe is a deemed distribution under 72(p). The terminology of course gives me pause so I'm not 100% confident in my answer... EPCRS Section 6.07 is the site.

In the end no one will do it so forgive me for not seeing the difference (and by "it" I mean doing a 6/30 accounting to show a 6/30 life annuity by 9/15).

It seems to me you're saying the same thing as me with more words...

There is literally no other option.

Peter are you aware that these plans have like 4 people on average? You talk as though their director of hr dropped the ball. and the issue isnt generating the numbers; all the software vendors have their reports. And you pointed out that we have until 9/18 probably (thank you for that). But even then we would be sending out 12/31-21 statements. And if you think it’s our fault or the clients fault that we can’t do this with 6/30/22 statements then you probably just don’t understand this model and what it takes to transform a filing cabinet with monthly statements into a reasonable source level statement with vesting updated etc.

How they did not think to address this would be absolutely mind boggling if I hadn't been working in this industry for 20+ years.

And if it has to be based on the 6/30/2022 balance well then forget it. i.e., it just doesn;t seem the least bit feasible.

HA! I was about to add to a link to that thread!

When you are doing the 6/30/2022 statement, are we clear that it can reflect your 12/31/2021 balance? It would seem to me the 6/30/2022 statement should reflect your 6/30/2022 balance. What about a new participant who rolled $300,000 in on April 1, 2022? They're not going to get their 6/30/2022 statement.

There is a rumor going around that those disclosures are due by 6/30/2022. Is that correct, and how is that even possible? Some of those plans we don;t get census data in a timely manner, etc. so may not be in a position to issue statements until say October 14th. Thoughts?

Thanks Belgarath!! Thats exactly what I needed!

Let's say there is a problem with a 401k plan and we come up with a fair correction method not listed in EPCRS. Is automatically ineligible for SCP treatmnt out of hand because its not listed? Or if we went with this outside-the-box-correction, is the correction acceptable assuming an IRS auditor thinks it was reasonable and justified. I don't want this question to be distracted by a particular fact pattern. My question really is just is there flexibility for SCP corrections not specifically delineated (in my case the issue is that the fact pattern is not listed in EPCRS). I completely understand that there would always be risk under audit that the auditor could find fault. This correction involves 1 person and is therefore not remotely in the zone for a costly VCP filing.

Also often ncessary to avoid the dreaded audit though. I can;t believe they (Congress/DOL) don't realize the only reason thousands of plans don't expand eligibility is because of the audit requirement. Really amazing to me. That and top-heavy. Fix those two and availability of retirement plans will skyrocket.

I can’t believe this stuff isn’t more well documented. I might try and buy some “Ira answer book” or something just have a resource. It’s hard not to have these sorts of answers for what I will refer to as my “next door neighbor”

I wonder if a recordkeeper maybe hasn't written up something nice? I'll bet one of them did...