BG5150

When I go to the "Retirement Topics — Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs)" page of the IRS it mentions the new age 72 rule. However, under "Calculating the required minimum distribution" section, the link to the Uniform Life Table leads to Publication 590-B (2020) and the sub heading says "For use in preparing 2020 Returns" Can I even find the new tables in the Retirement section of the IRS site? If so, where?

Do it now and plead for a waiver?

Our SPD says: (I think the bolded means adoption agreement and underlying plan document.) 1. Examine, without charge, at the plan administrator's office all documents governing the plan and a copy of the latest annual report filed by the plan with the U.S. Department of Labor. 2. Obtain copies of all plan documents and other plan information upon written request to the plan administrator (the administrator may make a reasonable charge for the copies). 3. Receive a summary of the plan's annual financial report. The plan administrator is required by law to furnish each participant with a copy of this summary annual report. 4. Obtain a statement telling you whether you have a right to receive a benefit at normal retirement age and if so, what your benefits would be at normal retirement age if you stop working under the plan now. If you do not have a right to a benefit, the statement will tell you how many more years you have to work to get a right to a benefit. This statement must be requested in writing and is not required to be given more than once a year. The plan must provide the statement free of charge.

My understanding is that if it's NOT a C-Corp, you can do the EZ.

My document provider said there shouldn't be a problem, but, like the KGB: Trust but verify. Does anyone agree with my document provider? (Nothing that req'd a 2021 date that I know of; we executed the Hardship/RMD amendment earlier in the year.)

What are the consequences of a client signing the Post PPA document with a date of 1/4/22 and the restatement is effective 1/1/21?

True dat. I didn't think it was needed. Thanks.

No loans to owners.

I know participant statements must get a blurb if the PS is allocated using a permitted disparity formula (integrated with SS). What if the formula is grouping method and subject to testing? The contribution COULD be allocated using permitted disparity. Is that same disclosure needed on the statements in that case?

Can you wait until the next SAR goes out and send it with that?

I understand. My point would have been, if the amendment is eligible to be effective retroactively, then just do a new amendment with a retro effective date and sign currently and just trash the old one.

I always assumed that W-4P was used for RMDs. I just became aware of the existence of W-4R. W-4P is for periodic distribs from a plan and the -4R is for non-periodic payments. Are RMDs considered periodic from DC plans? Most of the participants' RMDs that I work with are pretty much on an ad hoc basis: they take them at various times during the year. I have one lady who takes quarterly payments totaling her RMD for the year, but most take just one payment at the time it suits them. So, should we be using W-4P or -4R?

What was the amendment for? It is eligible for retroactive treatment under EPCRS?

Quite simply, cost. However, using overseas labor usually only pays off in scale.

How much much would be due on a $19,000 deferral How much match would be due on a $19,200 deferral What is the difference between the two. I agree with Mr. B., though. Comp of $137,500 and a deferral of $19,200 leads to a 13.93% deferral rate. Well above the threshold for the maximum match. I doubt this would make a difference, but is the match calculated on a payroll or annual basis? My last suggestion is to check with ASC and ask them to give you the reason the system is calculating the $14 excess match. (Whenever my r/k system spits out an answer I am not expecting, it bugs the heck out of me, and I spent probably way too much time trying to figure it out. I have zero compunction in dialing up the help desk and have them explain it to me. More often than not it's my fault. Something isn't selected properly in the specs, or I have some data int he wrong place...)

Temps here in America? Hire more FT employees? I doubt hiring another TPA is either feasible or possible. Lots of TPAs are loaded up what with Post PPA restatements and now testing season upon us. (I got 5 censuses myself over the holiday weekend!) And why would you want to share you (partial) cleint list with a competitor?

Drop a line to your local Congressman/woman and ask them to change the rules...

Bri got it right

Pro-tip: Whenever you make a poll, always make the last option "Other" or something like that. I often will make it something cheeky like "Who the heck cares? Get a hobby!"

I was always in between the two: EmployeR and employEE

Plan currently allows for in-service withdrawals at ag 59.5 for all sources. They would now like to limit it to only accounts that are 100% vested. Is there a cutback issue?

Employer had IRS Plan Number 003 terminated in 2003 and started PN 004 in 2004. I don't know what year they started filing the 5500-EZ, but I'm guessing it was a bunch of years ago. I see letters in my files going back to 2018, but I only have the EZs going back to 2015. The ones I have are all PN 001, so I'm assuming all the others are, too. What's the fix? Can I just fill out question 4 and change the PN there? I'd rather not amend 15 years worth of forms.

They should probably call EFTPS I think

Plan allows for in-plan Roth rollovers at any time as long as the funds are 100% vested. Is this a protected benefit?

Then the document actually DOES address it. Everyone who deferred 100% gets 4% of their bonus as a SH match. (really, anyone who defers at least 5% of their bonus gets the full match.)