XTitan

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/employers-and-advisers/plan-administration-and-compliance/reporting-and-filing/e-file/tophat-plan-filing-instructions "Enjoy"

Agreed

I'm guessing that the participant gets one form of distribution if they separate before hitting NRA and a different distribution form after NRA. If that's the case, then changing NRA for amounts accrued would be changing the benefit formula with would impose a 5 year delay (kind of the complete opposite of what lowering the NRA would achieve). Prospective would work just fine.

$2,700 confirmed. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-18-57.pdf

Here's another way that could work. Newco puts in a bonus plan for Oldco employees for 2020. Client and Newco agree to the terms of the bonus, and any payments Newco makes to the Oldco employees reduces the 2020 installment amount paid to Client. Newco gets to do all the tax reporting; who knows whether Client is still has the ability to deduct and remit taxes to appropriate authorities. Still no 409A issues unless there is a desire to defer payment beyond 2020.

Every year, the IRS and Treasury release a Revenue Procedure with inflation linked adjustments to certain tax items that is separate from the Notice that discusses the changes to the qualified plan limits. For example, Revenue Procedure 2017-58 was released last year in mid-October and contained 56 different inflation-adjusted tax items, including the tax brackets, standard deduction, personal exemptions, earned income credit, etc. These inflation adjustments were tied to the CPI-U. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed last December, and among other changes, replaced certain inflation adjustments (including the calculation for the next FSA limit) that were tied to the CPI-U to the C-CPI-U. That rate actually became known in mid-September, but it is not entirely clear how to apply the new rate to existing calculations. So, while $2,700 seem to be the limit, and I've seen others use this rate, we don't have the official announcement, so I am speculating that those who are responsible for calculating the limit officially need some internal guidance.

Still nothing. One reason for the hold-up is very likely that, due to TCJA, the FSA limit is now tied to the chained CPI-U, and there is some ambiguity in the application of the new rate. Last year, Revenue Procedure 2017-58 was released mid-October, so clearly this is overdue.

At what point in my life did the end of Daylight Saving Time go from "Hurray! I get an extra hour of sleep!" to "Ugh! Now I'm up an hour earlier!"?

And the crowd goes wild!

It will be $2,700, but just like the rest of the limits, we are still waiting for the IRS to announce officially; 2 weeks overdue and counting...

Last year, the release was the Friday of the week following the CPI announcement, so I was hoping it would be last Friday at the latest. It hasn't been this late since the year the CPI dropped back in 2009 and the delay was attributed to the IRS determining whether the limits should remain flat or decrease. Sigh.

I suppose the use of the term "fund" could be misleading absent adequate disclosure. I'm looking at one insurance company's 401(k) platform where the stable value offering is listed as a fund but then discloses that "the fund is not a mutual fund." A second insurance company's platform also uses the term fund for its stable value offering but has significantly more disclosure that this margin is too small to contain.

That makes more sense, and it's not surprising that the Total Death Benefit is less than the Face Amount plus Cash Value. Depending on how the policy is structured, they could be equal. I'd still expect the FMV to be close to the Cash Value of the policy, all things being equal, and assuming no monkey business on policy structure. That's what the insurance company would redeem the policy for.

The answer shouldn't be any different than how long to keep any tax record: it depends. Could be three years, seven years, or indefinitely. I always say that before you throw something away, you should make a copy of it, just in case...

Not sure how the total death benefit can ever be less than the current cash value unless there are some loans shown against the total death benefit but not the current cash value. I'd expect the FMV to be closer to the cash value provided there are no inflated surrender charges. See Rev Proc 2005-25 for guidance. rp05-25.pdf

The CPI confirms the limits Tom posted way back in June. Now just need the IRS to make it official. Social Security Wage Base is confirmed at 132,900.

My take was that it was described as a cash bonus contingent upon whether or not an exec making over 275k participates. Below is the reg (emphasis mine): 1.401(k)-1(e)(6)Other benefits not contingent upon elective contributions - (i)General rule. A cash or deferred arrangement satisfies this paragraph (e) only if no other benefit is conditioned (directly or indirectly) upon the employee's electing to make or not to make elective contributions under the arrangement. The preceding sentence does not apply to - (A) Any matching contribution (as defined in § 1.401(m)-1(a)(2)) made by reason of such an election; (B) Any benefit, right or feature (such as a plan loan) that requires, or results in, an amount to be withheld from an employee's pay (e.g. to pay for the benefit or to repay the loan), to the extent the cash or deferred arrangement restricts elective contributions to amounts available after such withholding from the employee's pay (after deduction of all applicable income and employment taxes); (C) Any reduction in the employer's top-heavy contributions under section 416(c)(2) because of matching contributions that resulted from the elective contributions; or (D) Any benefit that is provided at the employee's election under a plan described in section 125(d) in lieu of an elective contribution under a qualified cash or deferred arrangement. (ii)Definition of other benefits. For purposes of this paragraph (e)(6), other benefits include, but are not limited to, benefits under a defined benefit plan; nonelective contributions under a defined contribution plan; the availability, cost, or amount of health benefits; vacations or vacation pay; life insurance; dental plans; legal services plans; loans (including plan loans); financial planning services; subsidized retirement benefits; stock options; property subject to section 83; and dependent care assistance. Also, increases in salary, bonuses or other cash remuneration (other than the amount that would be contributed under the cash or deferred election) are benefits for purposes of this paragraph (e)(6). The ability to make after-tax employee contributions is a benefit, but that benefit is not contingent upon an employee's electing to make or not make elective contributions under the arrangement merely because the amount of elective contributions reduces dollar-for-dollar the amount of after-tax employee contributions that may be made. Additionally, benefits under any other plan or arrangement (whether or not qualified) are not contingent upon an employee's electing to make or not to make elective contributions under a cash or deferred arrangement merely because the elective contributions are or are not taken into account as compensation under the other plan or arrangement for purposes of determining benefits.

Try looking at it this way: any participant whose match is limited by 401(a)(17) will receive at least the missed match amount in cash. Not limited by 401(a)(17)? No bonus. Didn't make a contribution? No match was missed, so no bonus. Made a contribution and it was limited by 401(a)(17)? Get a cash bonus based on a formula, not based on the missed amount. The argument is probably stronger if instead of using a flat formula to calculate the bonus that the amount of the missed match is actually calculated per individual, which still gives zero for those not making a contribution. As an aside, since this is a cash bonus and not an NQ plan, I don't see 409A or 1.401(k)-1(e)(6)(iii)/(iv) applying, provided is it paid by March 15 of the following year.

I found the following doing a quick search. Is the attached your wife's plan? NRM-7128MD-MD.pdf

No issues at all.

If you want to see examples of NQDC plans, go to the SEC website, pick your favorite company, search out their latest 10-K and scroll through the Exhibit 10 listings. You should be able to find if the company has an NQDC and, if so, which SEC filing includes the text of the plan document. However, you are almost assuredly not going to find COLI or any kind of funding directly mentioned in the NQDC plan document; these are unfunded plans. When a company chooses to informally fund a plan, the TPA really needs direction from the client on what the funding strategy is because there can be a wide variety implemented (from basic to "I can't admin this!"). @QDROphile - I'd agree that companies that plan on utilizing COLI need to be thoughtful and informed. Having trusted advisors is crucial. I'd also agree that there have been some abuses, some of which make for good headlines in national publications, which drove legislation in 1995, 1997 and 2006 to foreclose on those opportunities.

As long as the time and/or form of payment isn't changing, just the amount, I don't see any 409A issues.

Prohibition? No. What kind of amending are you thinking about? If the change somehow potentially impacts the time and/or form of payment, you may be required to follow the 1 year/5 year rule.

Not to mention that 457(f) plans must also comply with 409A which requires plans be in writing (among other things).

I'd also say that the Same "select group of management of highly compensated employees" language applies.