austin3515

Larry, I know everything you just said, but I figure a tax expert might be the best person to comment on why there is no tax value in this. And I can;t see either how a DB plan helps, I mean if they wanted to give contributions to employees, this wouldn't be the direction of the conversation.

i get this question all the time. johnny owns 100% of his business and is looking for more deductions. He wants to look into a Deferred Comp plan for himself. I realize that there is no value in it for him, especially in a pass-through entity, but I am looking for an article from a large accounting firm or ERISA firm that explains either why it makes no sense and/or might give some reasons as to why it might in fact make sense in certain limited scenarios. Any help appreciated!

And file 10 years of 5500's?

What if they can't find it? Then you're in some hot water even if you did do it. I have this vision of an old closet somewhere with a box for each year starting with 1975, all yellowing with age, etc.

Are people applying the new rules regarding casualty losses that it has to be in a declared disaster area? It seems bazaar and likely to be corrected soon. In the meantim if someone's house burns down, are people telling that participant they are not eligible for a hardship? (assuming the fire was started by lightning strike in a regular storm).

Met Life and AIG were the examples I couldn't remember... http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160229/FREE/160229937/metlife-is-second-major-insurer-to-exit-the-brokerage-business-in

https://www.ta-retirement.com/resources/TCRS 2009-07_RR09-31and09-32.pdf Good write up by TransAmerica, a little more detailed than the Pru one.

That;s exactly what I just told the client (and gave them a name of our favorite ERISA attorney :))

Score!! Thanks ESOP GUY!!!

"The Larry Starr" is telling me -11(g)" is not related to testing? (2) Scope of corrective amendments. For purposes of satisfying the minimum coverage requirements of section 410(b), the nondiscriminatory amount requirement of §1.401(a)(4)-1(b)(2), or the nondiscriminatory plan amendment requirement of §1.401(a)(4)-1(b)(4), So do a -11(g) amendment OR just amend the Plan to add the provision. I'll take the latter. But to each his own I guess. Another thing I just thought of is that because my profit sharing source has a vesting schedule I would have to add a new source and provide that it is 100% vested. Devil is in teh details!

Bingo, that's the million dollar question. I mispoke, shame on me. We use the Volume Submitter prototype FORMATTED document. I was rushing... But even still it just seems way too far outside the box for a pre-approved plan. I'm thinking ERISA counsel to prepare some crazy amendment (unless I can talk my client out of it!). I'm confused about your reference to an -11(g) amendment here. We're not trying to correct anything for testing. Have you seen this done before and if so, how did it happen? I realize that it's a shot in the dark to see if you have ever seen it before... 415 would not be an issue, but definitely I agree HCE's would have to be out to make sure nothing falls apart.

Client allows ees to accrue up to 6 weeks of vacation, but then does not allow them to accrue any more. They do not want to allow people to get any cash in there paycheck for the unused vacation time, but want people to be able to make an election to "close out" their accrued vacation in exchange for a contribution to the Plan. Since 401(k) is CASH or deferred, and they have no option of cash, my conclusion is that they cannot count it as 401k. The only thing that gives me pause is I suppose they could just not work, and at that point would be getting the cash, but that does not seem to cut it. Could thye have an employer contribution to accomplish this? I don;t think there would be a good way to fit this into my plan document (standard prototype). Even though I have everyone in their group on this plan, something about this tells me that there should be more provisions around it. Has anyone seen anything like this before?

I didn;t read through everything here but all I wanted to say is this: If you are not an attorney who specializes bankrutpcy, in my humble opinion you should NOT be answering questions about protection of assets in bankruptcy. You can share what you've learned, but you should definitely couch it with the phrase "but if bankruptcy protection is a key area you are concerned with, you should consult with someone who specializes in bankruptcy." My two cents. Nothing to contradict all the advice provided about the question itself. Added via edit: I certainly would not want a bankruptcy attorney advising a business owner about how much he or she could/should contribute to the plan :)

Quick question: Did anyone in the retirement business get out to avoid complying with the new rules? I feel like I have heard stories of firms that either sold their lines of business or simply resigned.

Great point... Hopefully they will get their act together before all that money gets dumped into piece of ____ variable annuities for the enrichment of the unscrupulous...

What a cluster.... jpod, what I mean by conflicted comp being almost nonexistent is that all the major broker/dealers changed their comp structures in anticipation of the new rule. Do you agree? Pretty much every plan I work on, something was done, and that change often included switching to an RIA arrangement. OR the advisor completely dialed back on any investment advice whatsoever and engaged a 3(21) or a 3(38) and focused exclusively on education. I have no numbers to back me up here and I am fishing for people's thoughts in terms of whether or not poeple agree that to a near universal extent the ERISA plan world moved into the new Fiduciary Rule a while ago and there they'll stay. If for no other reason then all the attention/bad publicity their conflicted advice got them.

To be clear though, they do not need to comply with the impartial conduct standard any more though right? Regardless, my assumption is that "conflicted compensation" is probably almost entire nonexistent anymore. Would that be a fair statement?

I'm doing a training on something related to this soon. Does everyone agree that although the rule is pretty much dead that the world already conformed to it in large degree? In other words, if you want to understand how broker/dealers have structured their businesses today, the fiduciary rule is just part of the landscape today. Also, were there broker/dealers who actually entered into BIC agreements? I guess they no longer need the PT Exemption that the BIC afforded but I am curious to know if there are BIC's out there today.

Larry, you should get this question on the ASPPA IRS Q&A - settle this once and for all!

I did not know that... Do you think though that perhaps Mnuchin got his 2 cents in before it was finalized?

I don't disagree that many say we need greater protection. But that doesnt appear to be the focal point of this administration. Rather "business friendly" is their modus operandi - and the fiduciary rule is the polar opposite of that... And the SEC rule (which came out udner Trump and so presumably meets with his approval) stops short of a fiduciary rule. And the whole retirement system hangs in the balance while we wait!

I for one would like to know the circumstances that led to them depositing twice the amount. If for example Susan processed the match on Monday and Bill processed it on Wednesday, that is clearly a mistake of fact. I think for mistake of fact it has to be something like that.

https://benefitslink.com/src/ctop/Chamber_v_DOL_5thCir_Denial_of_Motion_to_Intervene_05022018.pdf Seems that way... The DOL is not defending it. Curious to know what others think or know (i.e, because of legal knowledge about the process) regarding the future of this thing...

That is interesting but I'm not sure there is a link between the hardship rules and that definition. The IRS is usually pretty good about saying "as defined in____" when the same definition applies.

Aha! Good point! I forgot to mention that :)