austin3515

Taking over a plamn where NRA is just 55. Are there any special rules to be aware of? Is there any way to use an older age for testing? I've read there are complications with using SSRA in place of NRA. Any ideas? ALSO Does anyone have an extended chart of dispiary factots? The one I am using (which is from the regs) only spans 60 to 70. I think the regs say you can use any reasonable method to extend up or down.

Do we have until the end of the 410b6c grace period to align the HCE definition?

Belgarath, dont you think the FAQ above would have been the method for the IRS to make that clear? They made no mention of any restrictions on timing. All they had to say was "provided the amendment is exceuted prior to the first day of the calendar year." But they didn't. And the fact that they just left that wide open in the FAQ on their website for all of us to read, knowing too that nothing else on point exists, we would ll turn to that for any restrctions that should be considered. But alas, nothing is there! I believe SOME thought must have gone into that response.

Bumping. Do we think we can make the change from immediate to 3 years "today" for 2018 (i.e., befoire 12/31/18? How about during 2019? Can I amend the 2018 eligibility in 2019, based on the rationale that I could have established the SEP in 2019? That FAQ link someone posted is clutch. The IRS had their opportunity to place restrictions on those changes, and they chose not to.

Whoa... on line filing process? Can you tell me more? I’m still mailing paper...

Assuming the top-hat exemption was filed with DOL when the plan was established, is there a requirement to notify them of a termination? Any sites on this would be tremendously appreciated...

These things are the best hidden topic I think I have ever seen. Does anyone have an article that talks about how these work? I can't find anything in the regs. The EOB doesn't mention them. In general I know they are mandatory ee contributions as a condition of employment which the IRS treats as Employer contributions. Do I have the long and short versions of it just about right?

Summary: you have to count service while a temp for eligibility and vesting (but not any annual allocation conditions on employer contributions. Congratulations, there are roughly a dozen people in the whole country who know this. You are now part of an exclusive club! [I'm sure I'm exaggerating, but that's just more fund!].

The only thing I'm personally leery of not announcing before the beginning of the plan year is how much to defer to get the full match. The definition of discretionary is that you get to decide later on, even after year-end. But imagine if you never had a match, and then March 2019 you decide to do a 100% of 6% match for 2018. If I was never told to contribute 6% that might sort of make me mad.

I completely agree with what Poje said earlier about "if the docs says all sources, then include all previously ineligible sources and if says deferral than its deferral only with no new sources." That really should carry the day here and be a pretty universally acceptable approach. I had certainly speculated that if I was a document provider writing an amendment that's certainly what I would write. Which means nothing of course, but if Tom Poje would too, that means something!

Wow that is bazaar. And what of people who retire to New York? Double taxed I guess. Nice system.

Yeah we saw that too, but we have no idea what it means either. I don;t know what a post-retirement contribution to a 403b is, and I work with 80 403bs. It must mean something though and that's what is so annoying. What do you think abut the 457b aspect of it?

Can someone speak to whether or not contributions to a 403b plan are tax deductible for a New Jersey resident? someone is saying that they New Jersey does not recognize the deduction for 403b plans, but does for 401k plans. Yet I have plenty of New Jersey customers and this has never come up--much less the issue of basis that people would have in their accoounts. It could even get messier if for example they do not get the deduction in New Jersey and then they move to California to retire, and take the money out and pay California tax on the way out. This just cannot be. On a similar note, I heard the same thing about 457b plans.

Boy wouldn't it be grand if someone could share such a checklist on these boards there close friends :)

Is anyone aware of a way to request old 8955-SSA's filed from the IRS? We have a new client who wants to make sure they have D'ed everyone that they A'd as far back as possible (obviously just the ones who have closed their accounts). they don't have copies internally and the prior provider sent the last couple but that's it.

OK does anyone have the list?

Well but presumably the recordkeepers would have programmed their systems based on the proposed regs and it sounds like our document provided is preparing the SMM's at least based on the proposed regs. Probably would have been smoother with 3 more months than they were allotted.

I suppose it is the IRS's fault for being too late with their regs. That seems to be the problem. No one would do boo without knowing what the rules were going to be (and I can't say I blame them). But maybe it is Congree's fault for jamming through a tax overhaul with a week's notice. I know the IRS is still trying to catch-up with all the guidance needed on that front too.

Listen we can sort this out too, but when you talk about sorting this out for 1,000+ clients it gets to be a bit ridiculous. And no one (aside from billion dollar plans perhaps) wants to spend a dime (let alone 5 minutes) discussing what these new rules mean for the plans. Granted my employers are generally smaller, but even my larger clietns really haven't got much interest in what could easily be called "excruciating minutiae"

Seriously is there anyone else out there who sees thing as a giant mess? 5 weeks away the rules change and no one is ready for this. We should have had amendments in place and the recordkeepers should have been ready to flip the switch. None of that is possible because the IRS just issued proposed guidance. Yet there will be demand from those in the most dire financial straights. Am I being too pessimistic here?

Very impressive analysis of course, but omg. This is for hardship distributions. This is turning out to be the most complex policy change I can think of recent memory. It occured to me that for the daily val plans, this is going to be 100% driven by whatever policies the recordkeepers implement. Has anyone heard from them?

But no one is using the new rules? Every law firm out there is blasting my clients in boxes with these new exciting rules for hardship distributions. And we're saying everyone;s response is, "maybe by the end of 2019 we can do this"?

So someone is losing their home, it is legal to take hardships from SHNEC, amendments won;t be finalized for months, we're saying the implementation is delayed beyond the statutory date, and this participant is "SOL"? I am really uncomfortable with that. I thought there was leeway to adopt amendments retroactively. But we're saying here consensus is essentially these new rules are not yet effective???

Corbel is telling me the amendments wont be ready and don't need to be signed until 2020/2021 anyway (I assume that was in the proposed reg?). It's a discretionary amendment though, so I don;t know. I just get the feeling that no one has any idea what the heck is going on with this change, or at least certainly not from operational perspective. Someone needs to write an article...

Wonderful. But participants can still take a hardship from Safe Harbor Accounts on 1/2/2019 though. I wonder if the recordkeepers are even ready to do that.