austin3515

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 :)

Amazing how a different discussion 6 years ago can essentially have all of the same arguments on both sides! I especially like this comment from Bird: Extremely insightful!

If I were the IRS I certainly would have included the requirement that the participant's name be on the deed, but it ain't there. I'm not saying I don;t agree with you but I don't think it is THAT black and white. In fact a purely black and white reading would render it acceptable. I'm stretching the regs to find it to be unacceptable.

Ha! I also began my career in public accounting so had some exposure there too!

(2) Costs directly related to the purchase of a principal residence for the employee (excluding mortgage payments); OK so this participant is using the money towards the purchase of principal residence. The problem here is, he won't own the principal residence, his girlfriend will. I have approved things like this before where it is to prevent eviction or foreclosure, where it is easy enough to establish that the person is in fact living somewhere. But this is a new twist. One thing I thought of is gift taxes being a possible issue here. The distribution is about $25,000. Thoughts? Has this ever come up for anyone else??

Good point - how about in-service distributions?

What if a plan offers a BRF but only to employees who are participants as of a certain date, but not to any new participants. For example, participant loans. Is BRF testing required? I couldn't find anything specifically in the EOB.

Maybe you can work something out

Well this is cool... With the help of the attorney I was able to pull the QDRO off of the court's website!!

Participant is telling me that they did not receive an ink/sealed version of the QDRO. She emailed me a pdf that clearly says "ELECTRONICALLY FILED" at the top of the page. What is a plan administrator to do? Generally, the paper signed version with the court seal and everything is received, at least in my experience.

I hate to see people give up a guaranteed pass on the ADP test though. That can be a significant sacrifice, especially if budget cuts preclude safe harbor contributions. I've always been frustrated when people say "they're doing 3% of pay, 100% vested anyway, so let's do a Safe Harbor 401k!" That;s a great short-term plan design, looking ahead just 2 or 3 years. But no non-profit in my opinion can project the budget out in the 10 year horizon (excluding ivy league higher ed perhaps). And non-profits (especially the executive director) tend to have a lot of people between $120K and $150K who contribute the max and will thus never ever pass the ADP test. And the 403b marketplace is opening up enough where there are decent choices.

Let's say for example a non-profit runs a 2 week summer camp that has 45 high schoolers on the payroll. My point is (as I said before) when you have to you have to. If you don;t have to, then by all means, do not!

Just had the same conversation today with a new client. But if there's a lot of people in and out of the building, this may be an indispensable provision. I too avoid it where possible, but if you have to you have to.