austin3515

I'm reading that there is not a lot of clarity on this topic regarding how to report these contracts on SChedule A, D and H. Anyone have some insight. I found this letter where someone who sounds like they know what they are talking about wrote the DOL to ask for guidance. https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/EBSA/laws-and-regulations/rules-and-regulations/public-comments/1210-AB63/00105.pdf My conclusion: From what I have gathered , the insurance component is separate from the underlying investments in the CCT. The insurance would go on A and H as an unallocated /general accounts contract and the CCT would go on the D. How it is reported on the H depends on if it is a DFE (I’ll bet it is). If a DFE you get to just report it as a CCT on the 5500. If not a DFE technically you have to report each asset class separately (stocks, bonds, mutual funds). Do I have it right? Does anyone have something more substantial written up?

Well I think this site is out of this world 😂

Payroll company, which by definition is in the business of processing payroll, asked my client to confirm tax retporting for after-tax contibutions. To which I responded, "can you please have your payroll confirm who the HCE's are for 2021"? (kidding of course). My understanding is that as far tax reporting goes on W-2s and 941s, these deductions are no different than 401k loan payment. Am I correct? i think its one of those things where I can't find any articles on how to reprot it on w-2's and 941s because there is simply no requirement to do so... I'm trying to prove a negative is the other way to look at it. Any help appreciated! I did find this in the w-2 instructions: Reported in box 14, but not in box 12. • After-tax contributions that are not designated Roth contributions, such as voluntary contributions to a pension plan that are deducted from an employee's pay. And Box 14 is apparently just a "whatever you want it to be" box, nothing regulatory about it.

Off topic but anyone know why our logos are outfitted with rocket ships? Did the Bakers end up making into space before Jeff Bezos?

Life is too short. Be Kind and send the Doc. It sucks to lose one believe me I know, but I don't see how withholding the document improves your situation one bit. You lost the case either way. And trust me your client will never forget you were a challenge to deal with in the transition and they might even tell their friends. Like others have said I bend over backwards for new TPA's when I lose a case because clients will never forget one way or the other if you were gracious and cooperative or a curmudgeon. And hey I can tell you clients have fired us and then realized what they were missing and came back (which they would not have if I chose the curmudgeon route...).

Don't ask Betty from accounting to bring her new baby into the office or ask her for pictures? Not likely 🤣

They certaonly would not be able to apply an aggregate 415 limit, but we should be able to use their goal functionality. i think I've cracked the code in terms of setting up an appropriate goal.

Well the sponsor has problems too... More work all around if the limit is blown.

I have a participant in the plan for whom we added after-tax contributions. Not to worry, she is not an HCE. She is married to a guy who is an "HCE" but he works for an unlreated company. But the bottom line is she wants to contribute as much as possilbe. What sorts of limit are people imposing on these contributions to make sure we don't blow the 415 limit? Can it be a one-off limit decided at the beginning of the year? For example, I want the client to be able to add a goal to the payroll system. I think it just occured to me that the payroll system's "goal" should be $58,000 minus 19,500 ASSUMING the Employer contributions will not exceed the Employer contributions (in my case they will not). Is that what people are doing? Other idea?

Well, I of course only speak from life experience and everyone who I knew who gave birth there was no hiding it. So hopefully my matter of fact assessment did not convey anything beyond generalities. I think it would be pretty widely accepted that if a woman took a QBAD there would be no need for any further investigation regarding the fact that she gave birth in 97.5% of the cases..

This is interesting. So a woman in a small office asks for a distribution and self certifies... The sponsor obviously has actual knowledge concerning a pregnancy. I guess she could have adopted after all, but boy does this raise the "actual knowledge to the contrary" standard or what? Even in the case of an adoption, you would think HR would know one way or the other if that happened. And that's probably true all the way up to an organization with a couple hundred people... I guess the dudes have an advantage here (at least the fraudulent ones 😁)...

Plan includes the QBAD provisions. Apparently these distributions are subject to self-certification. Is there a provison that says soething like "unless the plan administrator has actual knowleddge to the contrary"? Just curious what the standard for verification is on these QBAD's?

I know but I still have the same question (no stone unturned!). This loan program indicated that the grace period ended 90 days after a missed payment. My understanding again is that the loan program controls (not the "maximum available" grace period). I am considering the option of amending the grace period today if it would help, but I'm not sure if the bell can be unrung in that regard...

Wow, Ilene!! Thank you so much! 1) If you are within 60 days of the date on which the offset occurred, can you roll over the note. I was told "no" because as you said after offset, the participant actually has the money and there is no loan (hence the actual distribution). You can't roll over the note even 1 day after the offset. 2) I should have been more clear. What really happened is a "division" of employees all up and quit to go work for a new company. Obviously there is more to it then that so my client is working with this new company to accommodate the rollovers. So everyone had a severance from employment. There was not a spin-off per se.

Well the loan should be offset after the expiration of the grace period though irrespective of what is done on the recordkeepering system. Some recordkeepers won't do that until the sponsor requests it. Just because the sponsor hasn't requested the offset doesn't mean the note can be rolled to the new Plan...

I just heard from a very very reputable soruce that once the loan is offset based on the loan program, the note cannot be rolled over. Which of course is what Bird and Lou S. said, so props to them...

REally depends on the demographic. The lower paid people it's a much harder decision. Yes taxes, but they barely make rent every month so to get rid of that deduction might be quite tempting...

All of which we already knew, the question is really around what are the parameters that must be adhered to make that work. I've never seen loans get rolled over "immediately." You have to until the sale closes before you start giving people election forms. And then you need to give them some time to think. At one point does this transaction work and at what point doesn't it work? Where is that line? There must be an answer to this question,

So what are the parameters around which a rollover of the note would be allowable? There must be something written somewhere that says when the loan rollover is allowable. There is almost always a delay during mergers and acquisitions and spinoffs where the loans are not transferred until after their severance from employment.

I would agree with you, but as a practical matter, these loan rollovers are almost by definition after a loan offset, because generally we're talking about people who have a severance from employment. I just feel like there should be something straight on point about this... And that same Q&A references the ablity to repay a loan offset and to transfer the note in the same manner. IT does not differentiate between those 2 transactions.

I've been reading up on all of the rules regarding loan offsets and the ability to recontribute those amounts through the extended due date of their tax return following loan offset. But what has not been made very clear anywhere is how these rules interplay with the ability to rollover the note itself following offset. So in my example, loan offset was processed by the Plan as of April 30th based on their loan policy. This employee was included in a group of employees that are "Spinning off" into a new entity. They want the employee to be able to roll the balance over to the new plan. Can I still rollover the note even after the loan offset? That's the big question. The final regs that came out 1.402(c)(3) seem to make no mention of this whatever. 1.401(a)(31)-16 definitely talks about rolling over notes following offset, but its not clear to me if the new regs extend the date on which that is allowable. And even if it did, it raises other questions about the 5 year term as follows: -What if the note is not rolled over for a year? Presumably the loan would be reamortized as on an approved leave, but I figure someone must have written this down somewhere by now. -What if the 5 year term is already over? Presumably the new sponsor should not accept it (or maybe if the loan payments would exceed their paycheck). Again it just seems like this should be addressed one way or another. Can anyone point in the direction of what I am missing?

The funny thing is when I read this I was thinking, "that's odd, because it was really Monday that I worked?". But wait, it was only varied by the degree to which I was working!

I will certainly let you know when they respond. But their SPD definitey says "you can get a loan and if you want the loan program ask for it." So perhaps the only mandatory disclosure is the existence of a loan program in the first place and not any of the details.

Can someone please explain to me when/if a client needs to provide participants with a copy of a loan program. Is it solely upon request? Relius's 401k documents seem to include all relevant provisions in the SPD BUT for some reason the 403b document does not. Just curious what the rules are concerning this stuff.

Has anyone moved their desktops out to a cloud based environment, and if so with who? We just started talking to "Infinitely Virtual" which seems like an interesting approach. Unlike Azure, where we have to hire an IT firm to build the whole thing out, this platform seems like it's ready made with all the bells and whistles. I know there are other firms out there like them, and curious to know what others have used.