BG5150

First of all it they terminate the 410(k) plan, the company cannot implement a new 401(k) plan until at least 12 months after the last assets were distributed. So, there's a detriment right there. What they could do is stop investment into the funds that have surrender charges and contract with another record keeper to offer a daily-valued, participant-directed platform (like Voya or John Hancock or Empower--just examples, not necessarily recommendations). They liquidate and transfer the funds from the annuities to the new custodian as the surrender charges expire. Don't confuse where the assets are held as being 'the plan'. Assets can be moved from provider to provider, even the types of investments offered, without changing the underlying plan. Or, in other words, don't confuse a service termination with an asset custodian with a plan termination. What is your role in this? Are you in the retirement plan industry or are you just a friend asking on his behalf?

Does this mean there is no PS for the year, or there is no PS allowed in the doc? I can probably count on one hand the number of 401(k) plans that didn't allow a discretionary contribution whether or not they used it.

I find it odd they have this question, but there is no question about Safe Harbor contributions yet.

Is the participant under/over age 59 1/2? Refunds are not subject to the 10% penalty tax. So if they are under age 59 1/2 it would be advisable to issue 2 1099-Rs: one with code '1' and another with code '8'.

I disagree back. They complete the 1 YOS on the last second of 1/1/2023.

With the new rules, must plans allow all participants the ability to make Roth deferrals? Or can a plan just have the Roth only for when it's required for catch-up?

And I'm not sure if there any disaster-related extensions, too.

How are fees losses? They have nothing to do the amount the investments are worth. In Relius, if everything is entered correctly: contribs, distribs, divs, fees, transfers, loans, the G/L for refunds treat fees as withdrawals.

What are the rules for the SMM? I thought they only went to the affected participants. For example, if you were adding a loan provision, you do not need to send it to terminated employees.

Plan allows for 59 1/2 withdrawal but only: • the portion of your account being withdrawn has accumulated in the Plan for at least two (2) years What does that mean? Up to the account balance two years ago? Or everything now minus any contributions in the past 24 months? For example, my account is worth $10,000 now but I added $1,500 in contribs in the past 2 years. Two years ago, the account was worth $7,900. how much can I take? $8,500 or $7,900?

There's a question on the 5500-SF: Has the plan failed to provide any benefit when due under the plan? If a plan did not process the mandatory cashout, do we answer yes? The 5500-SF instructions only reference RMDs. But does it include other distributions? Like the cashouts? Or when someone requests a distribution but it languishes for some reason.

And the corollary: What if I initially put 50% in A and it goes down to 48% the next day. does the system automatically top it off for the other funds?

What happens when through daily gains and losses pushes the investment over the threshold? Say my plan restricts me to 50% of my account to fund A and no limit for the others. My first deposit is $1000, 50% to fund A and 25% each to funds B and C. So: A: 500 B: 250 and 😄 250 Then tomorrow, my account looks like this: A: 505 B: 245 😄 245 Now fund A has more than 50%. Do some of the asset in fund A have to be automatically reallocated? if so how?

i believe so

The participant ostensibly paid tax on the $40 (I'm guessing there was no withholding <$200). Are you suggesting the r/k forfeit the funds the participant paid taxes on?

Is there nondiscrimination testing on the non-elective?

I think in some European countries they would call it 4 billions.

Thanks, all

I'm getting conflicting info on how discretionary the Enhanced Catch-ups for those age 60-83 is. The Catch-up provision is already a discretionary provision in 401(k) and 403(b) plans. And I understand the new enhanced catch-up rules (super catch-up?) are discretionary too. But to what extent? Can a plan have "regular" catch-ups but not the enhanced c/u? Does the plan sponsor have discretion on both c/u's or just the regular one?

I would think that absent a lawsuit where the plan administrator would have to provide documents under discovery, this ex-participant is out of luck. And what documents fall under that 'disclosure' rule? I would think simply SPD (and SMMs), SAR and any fee disclosures while they were a participant.

Check your plan document first.

Before this plan came to us, there was a partial plan termination. Many of the accounts were distributed, but not all. Those that remained just were given accelerated vesting. Do the accounts of participants involved in a partial plan term HAVE to be distributed? Or can they stay in the plan?

Adding any contribution other than the SH contributions remove the Top Heavy protections. @metsfan026 is this new group new employees? Or established employees who weren't eligible for the plan to begin with? If they are brand new employees, unless they are owners or family members of owners, they probably won't be HCEs. So a PS might be the way to go.

Lo- Lo- Lo- Lo- Loooolaaa!

How was it a mistake of fact (I am very conservative when if comes to MOF). i see this as an EPCRS issue. But I can envision a problem with the payroll system if they try to 'adjust' the amount of deferrals on the W2 (12 D or 12 AA) when the YTD report would show differently. Also, I would not trust if we did do the MOF, the payroll run would be correct. Remember, there were at least SOME taxes withheld before the deferrals. So, if they ran the extra amount through payroll, they would have to omit the taxes previously taken. And who gets the earnings? The company? I cannot see that is right. Participant? If so, how do they get them? From the plan in a separate transaction? From the company? if the latter, then gross income for the affected employees would be higher than their actual earnings from the company, inflating what the company would have to pay in payroll taxes and remit on the W3.