austin3515

It's ironic isn't that you choose the right to direct investments as an example of something you would love to prevent? The Employer does in fact have the "unilateral" right to deny them that opportunity. And they do it to prevent the participants from making stupid decisions. That's actually another good example of an arbitrary policy within the plan sponsors domain where they get to decide what is and is not in their document. I guess this is kind of silly anyway because if I see a plan with no money purchase money that includes the j&s requirements, I do whatever I can to get rid of it. I don;t want anyone to think I am a proponent of such a provision. My point is only that the plan sponsor has wide latitude to design a plan as it sees fit. Unless it violates some law, then they can do it. Hence if their policy is to require a notarization on all forms, then that is also their prerogative. By the way, if someone is lost, and we track them down using a skip-tracing service, we won't give them the time of day unless they get a notarized form saying they are who they say they are.

The one I had just said no distributions period without spousal consent. You know, trying to prevent the dirt bag spouse from running out on the stay-at-home-with-the-kids-spouse, drains the 401k and blows the money in Vegas. Tale as old as time basically. Gee I wonder where plan sponsors got the idea to make that a requirement? Hmm... Oh I know, probably from the existing laws that make that a requirement for pension plan distributions. Yeah that's a strong possibility. Oh I know you're going to say. It's not the same thing at all. The spouse is waiving their right to a QJSA! Oh please. Has anyone actually seen someone take an annuity out of a 401k plan? Ever? I've been at this for near 20 years and never seen it once. The reality is that the spouse needs to approve the spouse taking their money as a lump-sum. Even a loan! That's just reality. So really, the argument that in a non-J&S plan suddenly the very same requirement with the very same purpose is now an outrage and will probably result in a gynormous lawsuit and a DOL investigation to boot is a bit hard to imagine.

I can see I've struck a nerve here. But since that wasn't the issue at hand, I still maintain that requiring a notary is not at all the same thing as keeping someone sepaarated from their money. Quite the opposite actually, it is ensuring that a participant's money will be their waiting for THEM and not some identity thief in northern Africa.

For the record a) this was an attorney drafted plan that required spousal consent for all transactions, even though it was not a J&S plan; b) they had an IRS determination letter (FWIW, I know it doesn't mean everything is ok, but worth noting nonetheless); and c) when we restated onto our document I told them to get rid of it for the sheer fact that it was a pain and unnecessary. I'm certainly not endorsing a policy like that. I was only making the point that plans can and do have weird and arbitrary and unnecessary requirements. But if they are in the plan, then by definition they are required.

Well, if the document says the spouse must sign, then it is by definition a requirement. No different then the document says you can;t get paid out until after the end of the plan year. It's arbitrary and pointless and stupid and it makes participants hoppin' mad. But because the docment says it, it is so.

Plans mandate things all the time that are not required. I have seen plans require spousal consent when not necessary for example (I don't mean a profit sharing plan including annuity options, I mean just an arbitrary requirement for spousal consent). Fiduciaries have personal liability for protecting plan assets. It would be improper in my opinion for someone to say how far a fiduciary should go in fulfilling that role (and thus protecting his or her own home, quite literally), barring something really quite extraordinary. So a notarization is relatively inexpensive and widely available. i.e., if it's not your home on the line, then you don't have too much right to 2nd guess. In contrast, saying that a distribution will not be approved unless a participant presents him or herself in person at the corporate headquarters with 3 forms of ID is almost certainly going too far (even though it's probably a great way to get "close to absolute" certainty of one's identity).

I'll bet the plans most likely to add such a feature are plans that had money stolen through identity theft. Just a hunch.

Wow, that's an interesting thought...

So this got more complicated and not less complicated. That's great.

There was another thread that was super long on all of this stuff. Curious to know if others agree that retirement contributions are almost certainly moot now with the 24 week period as opposed to 8 weeks? Obviously a company that has been shut down since March is a different story, I'm talking about the for whom payroll over 24 weeks will exceed the amount needed for forgiveness.

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.