austin3515

The employee actually didn;t care at all. It was the "bundled recordkeeper" who is putting their foot down on the corection. I got the impression from the CPA auditor I was speaking with that perhaps they would accept a different correction, but only if a hold harmless was obtained. They haven't said that yet, but I think that's where it would end up.

Yeah, I guess so. Thanks!

Participant elected to contribute 10% of pay. Whoops, typo, client enters 12% for contribution on payroll. Very very strict recordkeeper says "OK the correction here is to pay the extra 2% of pay out to the participant as a taxable distribution, code 8, no excise tax, etc." probably more strict than I would be in this situation but I certainly cannot disagree with them. As far as I know ECPRS has nothing on this kind of an error. Has anyone heard of an alternative way to correct this that would allow the participant to leave the money in the plan? I have already suggested that the participant can just contribute more in future pay dates to put the money back into the plan. Just curious if there is a way to just leave the money in the plan as is.

I'm just glad that the restaurants can now pay their employees for service that will generate them income and they can have the payroll forgiven. That is assuming the Prez signs the bill.

Well if it wasn;t then I guess they accomplished their objective. That is understood but to what advantage? Wouldn't it make more sense for said restaurant owner to hang on to the money and use it to finance operations when they re-open? The answer is yes it would because there is NO reward for them to pay the NetFlix watcher. Anyway I feel like I heard there was a development today so maybe they will fix this. And by the way what I have described above is why they are talking about extending the window. So I guess I must be onto something.

Be that as it may, let's say you own a restaurant. You can either pay people to do nothing, and get Uncle Sam to pay for it, which nets you nothing. Or just let them collect unemployment. Compare that with say an accounting firm that a) paid its employees; b) profited from the services rendered; and c) got said payroll expense which generated revenue for them, paid for by Uncle Sam. Now call me crazy, but that ain't fair.

Well, I thought the rationale was that all of these businesses that needed the help the most will have nothing forgiven because they couldn't reopen until recently. Meanwhile all of the businesses that were not affected "at all" and stayed open have no problem getting their debt forgiven. That's not a partisan issue at all. PPP was totally bipartisan, so if the "rich" get their debt forgiven while the decimated get screwed, everyone will pay the price. Democrats and Republicans. Strike that - the Dems did their part in the House I guess. Would be silly if none of the restaurants got any help, or the dentists, etc. I lean to the left, but does that sound like a "liberal" statement? It just sounds like common sense to me. OK I'm getting off my soap box now.

If I recall the point he made it, it was that all of those Earned Income Rules were intended to equalize the playing field as much as possible and treat them the same. And it seemed contrary to that objective to treat them so very differently for purposes of PPP. It is hard to imagine that Congress intended to treat partners different then S-Corp owners in terms of their eligibility for PPP. But I've said all along, we need a damn FAQ to settle this once in for all. It makes no difference what Larry or Derrin says. We need the IRS guidance. But anyway, who has the low down on when this will be obsoleted by the extension to 24 weeks? IT seems to have stalled after passing in the House?

I don't recall perfectly well, but are those 100% finalized, or just done for the short-term for plans that were terminating? I wouldn't do it yet. i.e., I think as more guidance gets released they might change the amendment (at least I suppose it would be impossible to rule that out).

You made my day.

Thats exactly what I'm doing - One amenmdnet, but it says "If this, then this applies, else that applies." I'm really more curious if others have reached the same conclusion. When I was discussing with FIS I just couldn't tell if they were really thinking "Hmm, the International Man of Mystery has a point" or "This guy missed the boat on this." I mean I guess overall, one policy that says "QNECs/QMACs are eligible for hardship" or "are not eligible for hardship" just doesnt seem practical. Am I alone in that? I often find myself alone on these message boards, so I'm comfortable being here, just curious if I am or not...

We have been administering hardships as follows for our clients: -If the document said "all sources" are available for hardships, then we allowed from QNEC/QMAC/Safe Harbor. -IF the said just Elective Deferrals then we treated them as not eligible. This treatment appeared to us at least to be the most logical path forward. The problem is that the Corbel/FIS Amendment was drafted it forces us to choose a default of "QNECs are available" or "QNECs are not available." A binary decision which will lead to probably half of our amendments requiring employer sign off. I prefer to have a formula that says "IF all sources is selected in the Adoption Agreement, then QNECs are available. If individual sources were selected in the Adoption Agreement, then QNECs are not available." What are others doing with this? I'm not sure how other document providers handled this, but I guess it doesn;t have to be exclusive to Corbel/FIS. Are others in the same pickle?

After all this, I just can't wrap my head around the DOL actually writing this down: "You cannot mail a hard-copy of this notice." That is a breathtaking statement based on their past aversion to e-delivery. Mind you there is not a requirement that a "hyperlink" be provided, and how could you since a login will inevitably be required. But I guess this is over now.

Now were talking. They actually said "no paper." So that was stupid. This rule is completely worthless. RBG, I know youre going to say "I said that already" but until Peter posted the preamble I thought it could be suggested/argued or whatever that paper was above and beyond. I did not know until his post that they specifically said you cannot use paper for the NOIA. I thought you were inferring paper would not qualify. It doesn't matter I guess. Thanks!

Listen, I think this at least something worth confirming with the DOL. Without this intepretation, there is no relief at all with respect to terminated participants. We're not getting their emails. It just isn;t happening. Not for anyone. I think its worth asking the DOL at some Q&A.

What's the reasoning here? In this situation I think hard copy is worse because it results in more effort on the part of the participant to be able to access the disclosures. It's better in the DOL's opinion. Why would I say such a thing? You can always send a notice on paper. There are no hoops at all to jump through to be able to send a paper disclosure, no "Safe harbor rule on mailing paper". You just mail the paper. That's it. There are only hoops to jump through to send a disclosure electronically. So if as part of the e-disclosure safe harbor I am "required" to send a disclosure electronically, if I voluntarily opt to send that disclosure on paper then I am going above and beyond the safe harbor. I should be more clear - that is the case I am making / the question I am asking is wouldn;t it be reasonable to conclude that mailing the NOIA on paper is consistent with the Safe Harbor?

I'm only asking if it is reasonable to assume that mailing the NOIA on paper will qualify for the safe harbor. I'd say yes because it is BETTER than sending it via email. All of these hoops and hurdles are to obtain the luxury of emailing something versus hard-copy. For this one aspect I'm going to mail hard-copy and not email, so that should be construed as going above and beyond the safe harbor. Yes that's it. that is my point.

https://ferenczylaw.com/flashpoint-the-dol-edisclosure-regulations-reduction-in-paper-and-mailing-costs-but-no-guarantee-that-the-documents-have-been-read-under-intel/ From Ilene's article: The NOIA must contain only the following elements (where items are in quotes below, that specific language must be used: -Unless the document is attached, the website address with sufficient instructions as to how to locat the Covered Document on the web page to provide ready access, OR a directly hyperlink to the Covered Document. [my point is, it can be mailed on paper to the same affect].

Not according to what I'm reading. The NOIA requires only this, which is a far far cry from a link to a website. No reason this could not be done on paper just as effectively as in an email: "Any instructions needed about how to access the provided information (such as passwords, a need to download a mobile application, or the need to set up an on-line account to view secure documents);"

I disagree. The big give is allowing the employer to put the disclosure itself on a website. To not have to mail a 20 page fee disclosure is an enormous cost savings (or 35 page Summary Plan Description). If I only had to mail a 1 page paper disclosure with the NOIA required language that would be a huge savings. Dear Participant: "Log into your 401k account at ABC REcordkeeper and go to this section of the website." Why can't that be done on paper? I get that the rule doesnt say thats ok, but I just am struggling with the fact that no one else sees it the way I do... That would be such an efficient way to handle fee disclosures, including for the recordkeepers who will clearly have the problem I have described above.

Why not get email addresses for terminted participants??? Because it would be a pain.

I just read through Ilene Frenczys article on this, and it sounds all well and good. But I'm surprised no one is asking the question about sending the Notice of Internet Availability on paper. This seems like a very logical path for terminated participants because were not going to get email addresses for them at this point. And why would their be a notice that you CAN'T send on paper when there are hoops to jump through for the privilege of sending electronically. The value is clear - a 1 page notice that the 37 page fee disclosure is available on line. Has anyone else considered this?

Please share a link to your article. i'm sure it would be well worth my while to read it!

Can I do this: Send a letter to a bunch of terminated participants and say "Dear Term: Please log into ABC Recordkeeper's website and review the fee disclosure." IF the answer is yes I will say, and rejoice, Hallelujah!!

Wow it took a long time figure out we agreed :).