MoJo
-
Posts
1,592 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
87
Reputation Activity
-
MoJo got a reaction from RatherBeGolfing in Eligibility for Hardship Distribution
Self-certification is only good as long as the employer has no knowledge to the contrary. The quip cited by metsfan would , to me, be "knowledge to the contrary" that a hardship condition doesn't exist.....
-
MoJo got a reaction from R Griffith in Does a recordkeeper inform a plan sponsor about the long-term-part-time provision?
We have been communicating the LTPT provisions since right after we caught our breath from CARES Act issues. Webinars, monthly newsletter articles (repeated quarterly), "datasheets" (mini-whitepapers) and lots of other communications. We charge RMs with actually having conversations with clients (wow, go figure - actually talking to clients) and targeted clients who had part-timers on the payroll - including medical PRT employees, seasonal employees, and others. We even targeted off-calendar year clients, where under S2019, some part-timers could become LTPT participants in 2023. If our clients haven't heard about LTPT, and their role in facilitating that provisions, we should fire them as undesirable clients.
Absolutely positively not. We "inform." We don't decide. We are a "nondiscretionary directed ministerial service provider" with a wealth of knowledge we like to share with our clients - always for "review by counsel!" Whether they do or not, well ....
-
MoJo got a reaction from Gina Alsdorf in Stopping installment payments?
Well, just to muddy these waters a bit. We are a recordkeeper and have multiple pre-approved documents for use by our clients (plan sponsors) Ever since EGTRRA, the IRS (or at least the reviewer of our 401(a)/401(k) document has MANDATED that the document contain language that PROHIBITS the deceleration of installments (including stopping them), once started, and has insisted on language that MANDATES that installments be calculated based on life expectancy at the time first taken (i.e. you can't setup installments for a fixed period of time (even if les than life expectancy). We argued, Relius says they argued (we are a major modifier of their docs) to no avail. The reviewer indicated that any flexibility would/could be a violation of the RMD rules, and therefore is not allowed (even though the RMD section clearly overrides any other distribution form, when required). Interestingly, there is no such provision in the 401(b) plan. Consequently, our document specifically precludes cessation of installments, and requires any change in installments to be a single lump sum of the balance (or arguably higher installment amounts - but that isn't clear.) Presumably, anyone else using the Relius document also has this provision - as it was in their off-the-shelf version before our modification.
I think the IRS is full of it. Groom Law agrees with us, and since the reviewer is now retired, we intend to try again in the next (k) restatement. Unfortunately, we a re locked into what the document says, and even if allowed (as I believe it is), to do so would be failure to follow the terms of the document....
-
MoJo got a reaction from Peter Gulia in Does a recordkeeper inform a plan sponsor about the long-term-part-time provision?
We have been communicating the LTPT provisions since right after we caught our breath from CARES Act issues. Webinars, monthly newsletter articles (repeated quarterly), "datasheets" (mini-whitepapers) and lots of other communications. We charge RMs with actually having conversations with clients (wow, go figure - actually talking to clients) and targeted clients who had part-timers on the payroll - including medical PRT employees, seasonal employees, and others. We even targeted off-calendar year clients, where under S2019, some part-timers could become LTPT participants in 2023. If our clients haven't heard about LTPT, and their role in facilitating that provisions, we should fire them as undesirable clients.
Absolutely positively not. We "inform." We don't decide. We are a "nondiscretionary directed ministerial service provider" with a wealth of knowledge we like to share with our clients - always for "review by counsel!" Whether they do or not, well ....
-
MoJo reacted to Lois Baker in Helene - BenefitsLink is ok, others are not
Thank you so much -- this area needs all the help we can get. More info is coming out, and it just looks worse and worse; the toll both in lives and in economic loss is going to be staggering.
Samaritan's Purse is on the ground -- distributing food and water, setting up field hospitals, etc. Operation Airdrop has been in the air for two days -- helicopter is the only way to get to many locations The Y'all Squad -- they're buying and installing portable StarLink units; communication (even among first responders) is the biggest struggle right now.
-
MoJo reacted to Lois Baker in Helene - BenefitsLink is ok, others are not
Many of you know that BenefitsLink is headquartered in the mountains of North Carolina. Thankfully, we're safe and sound, albeit without cell service and primary internet (thank goodness for StarLink!).
Many around us are not.
We know that Florida and Georgia experienced significant damage. The mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee took a devastating hit.
Over 2' of rain fell in a large swath of the NC mountains; the runoff put rivers at historic flood levels. Power, cell and internet service are all down over a large area, roads are collapsed or otherwise impassable, and many homes and small towns are completely isolated -- or washed away.
Two of the four interstate routes in/out of Asheville -- the two that cross the mountains to the west -- have washed out; a third route (to the east) is blocked in several places.
The damage is almost unbelievable -- and the affected area is almost the size of Massachusetts.
This area is not equipped or prepared for this level of catastrophic destruction. Mountain people are self-reliant survivors, both individually and collectively, but this will be quite a stretch.
It will be a long, difficult road forward.
Please keep all in this area in your thoughts and prayers. And if any of our BenefitsLink neighbors have been affected, please reach out on this thread - we'll do what we can to help.
Lois and Dave
-
MoJo reacted to Belgarath in Hurricane Helene
For all you folks who may be impacted, here's hoping you come through it with minimal effects. Best of luck!!
-
MoJo got a reaction from Paul I in IRA Beneficiary Dies Hours After Original Depositor
I would respectfully disagree. A "simultaneous death" doesn't mean at the same time or even for the same reason. In some cases, a "simultaneous death" occurs even if there is a gap of up to 30 days, if the deaths were the result of a common cause (i.e. a car accident that kills one instantly, and the other lingers for weeks before dying of injuries received). In other cases, the cause of the second death is irrelevant, if the deaths occur in close proximity (sometime days separated). The bottom line is, each state has it's own simultaneous death statutes that will define whether or no a simultaneous death exists give the facts - and each determination is very fact specific.
-
MoJo got a reaction from Belgarath in IRA Beneficiary Dies Hours After Original Depositor
I would respectfully disagree. A "simultaneous death" doesn't mean at the same time or even for the same reason. In some cases, a "simultaneous death" occurs even if there is a gap of up to 30 days, if the deaths were the result of a common cause (i.e. a car accident that kills one instantly, and the other lingers for weeks before dying of injuries received). In other cases, the cause of the second death is irrelevant, if the deaths occur in close proximity (sometime days separated). The bottom line is, each state has it's own simultaneous death statutes that will define whether or no a simultaneous death exists give the facts - and each determination is very fact specific.
-
MoJo got a reaction from CuseFan in IRA Beneficiary Dies Hours After Original Depositor
I would respectfully disagree. A "simultaneous death" doesn't mean at the same time or even for the same reason. In some cases, a "simultaneous death" occurs even if there is a gap of up to 30 days, if the deaths were the result of a common cause (i.e. a car accident that kills one instantly, and the other lingers for weeks before dying of injuries received). In other cases, the cause of the second death is irrelevant, if the deaths occur in close proximity (sometime days separated). The bottom line is, each state has it's own simultaneous death statutes that will define whether or no a simultaneous death exists give the facts - and each determination is very fact specific.
-
MoJo got a reaction from Bird in Has any service provider paid on a fiduciary warranty?
So the only "warranties" I've seen indicate that the platform options are "suitable" for retirement plans, but that the actual selection from those options, and their applicability to a specific plan, or a fiduciary function, and not covered under the warranty. For a service provider to be overly involved in that plan level selection process would essentially make them a fiduciary - and most absolutely deny fiduciary status, unless they have an investment arm, or provide (limited) 3(16) services (as we do). Otherwise, we are a "non-discretionary, directed, ministerial service provider."
-
MoJo got a reaction from Peter Gulia in Has any service provider paid on a fiduciary warranty?
So the only "warranties" I've seen indicate that the platform options are "suitable" for retirement plans, but that the actual selection from those options, and their applicability to a specific plan, or a fiduciary function, and not covered under the warranty. For a service provider to be overly involved in that plan level selection process would essentially make them a fiduciary - and most absolutely deny fiduciary status, unless they have an investment arm, or provide (limited) 3(16) services (as we do). Otherwise, we are a "non-discretionary, directed, ministerial service provider."
-
MoJo got a reaction from Gina Alsdorf in Reasonable NRA for a boxer for a DB plan
Years ago, we set up a DB plan for a pro boxer - with an NRA of 35.... The IRS puked all over that and insisted it was unreasonable - and demanded at least 50. We had no choice (nor appetite to sue) and went with 50. The problem with Peter's excellent analysis is that the prime earning years get diluted with lower earning in the "related" activities post boxing, and that requires an interesting formula to still provide desired benefits (not to mention funding gymnastics).
-
MoJo got a reaction from Bri in existing company joining a MEP... terminating current plan?
No. The MEP would be a "successor plan" and since a successor plan exists, there is no distributable event from the existing plan. Easiest approach is to merge the existing plan into the MEP plan.
-
MoJo got a reaction from Belgarath in 401k Without a Beneficiary Designation
I look at this one step at a time. When uncle dies, plan assets go either per a beneficiary designation *or* if none, per the terms of the plan. I would guess that the spouse (aunt) is the bene under the terms of the plan - so those assets go to her - whether she exercise control over them or not. Uncles will is irrelevant. Only a valid beneficiary designation or the terms of the plan govern. So, when aunt died, assets go per her bene designation (if any) or per the terms of the plan - and uncle, uncle's estate, and uncles trust have no bearing on aunt's distribution of her interest in the plan. Aunt's representative (estate) or others would be entitled to those benefits - absent some fact not disclosed. The court has NO JURISDICTION over the plan assets until paid, and cannot direct those assets to be paid to the trust, and whether it is a pass-through is really irrelevant..
-
MoJo reacted to Belgarath in New to industry
All great advice. I'll also mention ERISApedia. A great resource, with some outstanding bells and whistles available.
Furthermore, the knowledge and generosity of their time and expertise among the many participants on this board has helped me immeasurably over the years. While I'm at it, yet another thanks to Dave and Lois Baker for doing such a great job in providing this forum!
-
MoJo got a reaction from chaosdreamer in 401k Without a Beneficiary Designation
I look at this one step at a time. When uncle dies, plan assets go either per a beneficiary designation *or* if none, per the terms of the plan. I would guess that the spouse (aunt) is the bene under the terms of the plan - so those assets go to her - whether she exercise control over them or not. Uncles will is irrelevant. Only a valid beneficiary designation or the terms of the plan govern. So, when aunt died, assets go per her bene designation (if any) or per the terms of the plan - and uncle, uncle's estate, and uncles trust have no bearing on aunt's distribution of her interest in the plan. Aunt's representative (estate) or others would be entitled to those benefits - absent some fact not disclosed. The court has NO JURISDICTION over the plan assets until paid, and cannot direct those assets to be paid to the trust, and whether it is a pass-through is really irrelevant..
-
MoJo got a reaction from ugueth in 401k Without a Beneficiary Designation
I look at this one step at a time. When uncle dies, plan assets go either per a beneficiary designation *or* if none, per the terms of the plan. I would guess that the spouse (aunt) is the bene under the terms of the plan - so those assets go to her - whether she exercise control over them or not. Uncles will is irrelevant. Only a valid beneficiary designation or the terms of the plan govern. So, when aunt died, assets go per her bene designation (if any) or per the terms of the plan - and uncle, uncle's estate, and uncles trust have no bearing on aunt's distribution of her interest in the plan. Aunt's representative (estate) or others would be entitled to those benefits - absent some fact not disclosed. The court has NO JURISDICTION over the plan assets until paid, and cannot direct those assets to be paid to the trust, and whether it is a pass-through is really irrelevant..
-
MoJo got a reaction from acm_acm in 401k Without a Beneficiary Designation
I look at this one step at a time. When uncle dies, plan assets go either per a beneficiary designation *or* if none, per the terms of the plan. I would guess that the spouse (aunt) is the bene under the terms of the plan - so those assets go to her - whether she exercise control over them or not. Uncles will is irrelevant. Only a valid beneficiary designation or the terms of the plan govern. So, when aunt died, assets go per her bene designation (if any) or per the terms of the plan - and uncle, uncle's estate, and uncles trust have no bearing on aunt's distribution of her interest in the plan. Aunt's representative (estate) or others would be entitled to those benefits - absent some fact not disclosed. The court has NO JURISDICTION over the plan assets until paid, and cannot direct those assets to be paid to the trust, and whether it is a pass-through is really irrelevant..
-
MoJo got a reaction from Patty in 401k Without a Beneficiary Designation
I look at this one step at a time. When uncle dies, plan assets go either per a beneficiary designation *or* if none, per the terms of the plan. I would guess that the spouse (aunt) is the bene under the terms of the plan - so those assets go to her - whether she exercise control over them or not. Uncles will is irrelevant. Only a valid beneficiary designation or the terms of the plan govern. So, when aunt died, assets go per her bene designation (if any) or per the terms of the plan - and uncle, uncle's estate, and uncles trust have no bearing on aunt's distribution of her interest in the plan. Aunt's representative (estate) or others would be entitled to those benefits - absent some fact not disclosed. The court has NO JURISDICTION over the plan assets until paid, and cannot direct those assets to be paid to the trust, and whether it is a pass-through is really irrelevant..
-
MoJo got a reaction from Bill Presson in 401k Without a Beneficiary Designation
I look at this one step at a time. When uncle dies, plan assets go either per a beneficiary designation *or* if none, per the terms of the plan. I would guess that the spouse (aunt) is the bene under the terms of the plan - so those assets go to her - whether she exercise control over them or not. Uncles will is irrelevant. Only a valid beneficiary designation or the terms of the plan govern. So, when aunt died, assets go per her bene designation (if any) or per the terms of the plan - and uncle, uncle's estate, and uncles trust have no bearing on aunt's distribution of her interest in the plan. Aunt's representative (estate) or others would be entitled to those benefits - absent some fact not disclosed. The court has NO JURISDICTION over the plan assets until paid, and cannot direct those assets to be paid to the trust, and whether it is a pass-through is really irrelevant..
-
MoJo got a reaction from Lou S. in 401k Without a Beneficiary Designation
I look at this one step at a time. When uncle dies, plan assets go either per a beneficiary designation *or* if none, per the terms of the plan. I would guess that the spouse (aunt) is the bene under the terms of the plan - so those assets go to her - whether she exercise control over them or not. Uncles will is irrelevant. Only a valid beneficiary designation or the terms of the plan govern. So, when aunt died, assets go per her bene designation (if any) or per the terms of the plan - and uncle, uncle's estate, and uncles trust have no bearing on aunt's distribution of her interest in the plan. Aunt's representative (estate) or others would be entitled to those benefits - absent some fact not disclosed. The court has NO JURISDICTION over the plan assets until paid, and cannot direct those assets to be paid to the trust, and whether it is a pass-through is really irrelevant..
-
MoJo got a reaction from QDROphile in 401k Without a Beneficiary Designation
I look at this one step at a time. When uncle dies, plan assets go either per a beneficiary designation *or* if none, per the terms of the plan. I would guess that the spouse (aunt) is the bene under the terms of the plan - so those assets go to her - whether she exercise control over them or not. Uncles will is irrelevant. Only a valid beneficiary designation or the terms of the plan govern. So, when aunt died, assets go per her bene designation (if any) or per the terms of the plan - and uncle, uncle's estate, and uncles trust have no bearing on aunt's distribution of her interest in the plan. Aunt's representative (estate) or others would be entitled to those benefits - absent some fact not disclosed. The court has NO JURISDICTION over the plan assets until paid, and cannot direct those assets to be paid to the trust, and whether it is a pass-through is really irrelevant..
-
MoJo got a reaction from justanotheradmin in 401k Without a Beneficiary Designation
I look at this one step at a time. When uncle dies, plan assets go either per a beneficiary designation *or* if none, per the terms of the plan. I would guess that the spouse (aunt) is the bene under the terms of the plan - so those assets go to her - whether she exercise control over them or not. Uncles will is irrelevant. Only a valid beneficiary designation or the terms of the plan govern. So, when aunt died, assets go per her bene designation (if any) or per the terms of the plan - and uncle, uncle's estate, and uncles trust have no bearing on aunt's distribution of her interest in the plan. Aunt's representative (estate) or others would be entitled to those benefits - absent some fact not disclosed. The court has NO JURISDICTION over the plan assets until paid, and cannot direct those assets to be paid to the trust, and whether it is a pass-through is really irrelevant..
-
MoJo got a reaction from EBP in Long Term Part Time Employees
And I with your analysis. Pay particular attention to the section discussing off-calendar year plans - and based on doing it as the OP says, the IRS confirmed that an LTPT could have actually become eligible in 2023. It is specifically because of the flip from anniversary date to plan year that this occurs....
You use the normal eligibility computation period per the plan. If it flips to plan year, the OP is correct.