Peter Gulia

Further, there might be opposition from a Member of the House of Representatives.

Whether a plan’s administrator relies on or refuses a qualified election, spouse’s consent, and notarial act is in the administrator’s discretion. About whether someone tries creative means to do a notarial act: National S. 3533 A bill to authorize and establish minimum standards for electronic and remote notarizations that occur in or affect interstate commerce, to require any Federal court located in a State to recognize notarizations performed by a notary public commissioned by another State when the notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce, and to require any State to recognize notarizations performed by a notary public commissioned by another State when the notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce or when the notarization was performed under or relates to a public act, record, or judicial proceeding of the State in which the notary public was commissioned. As of 03/25/2020 text has not been received for S. 3533. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3533/text This idea is not in the pending coronavirus bill. States Executive orders: Connecticut https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/Office-of-the-Governor/Executive-Orders/Lamont-Executive-Orders/Executive-Order-No-7K.pdf New York https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/governor.ny.gov/files/atoms/files/EO%20202.7.pdf No one knows whether anyone would rely on such a notarial act. Proposed legislation: New Jersey https://ils-content.s3.amazonaws.com/COVID-19/NJ+bill+for+remote+notary.pdf

Here's a text of the draft bill. But there is still haggling over some provisions. Coronavirus-Stimulus-Bill.pdf

Let me give an example: My client has a service agreement with a recordkeeper. The agreement obligates the recordkeeper to provide a specified number of workers at the client’s location. That location is not one under any government-ordered shutdown. It’s not strictly impossible for the recordkeeper to perform its service obligation. The recordkeeper requested my client’s assent to provide the workers by technology presence, rather than face-to-face presence. The assent made it unnecessary for either party to consider impracticability or force majeure issues.

You're right; it's no more than an indirect sense. But the list of 6,271 plans and the list of trust or insurance companies that have taken on a QTA administration, including many that are big recordkeepers, affiliates of them, or directed trustees arranged with them, suggests that many are willing for at least some of the abandoned plans.

Yes, it's about the public-health emergency. My observation, so far, is that service providers and service recipients are cooperating nicely, making it unnecessary to evaluate questions of law.

Two hours in, they're still speechifying.

I'll answer my own question: https://www.askebsa.dol.gov/abandonedplansearch/

The Senate now is readying to act on H.R. 748, into which the coronavirus stimulus legislation would go.

Will anyone please share information on which recordkeepers and directed trustees are willing to serve as an abandoned plan’s qualified termination administrator, and which are unwilling?

If you're willing to begin work with a few-days-old placeholder rather than the legislation likelier to emerge, here's a link to the McConnell bill. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3548/text

Is anyone aware of a retirement-services provider using impossibility or a contract’s force majeure clause as a reason not to do something that otherwise would be a service obligation?

And the IRC § 404(a)(6) time for a deductible contribution: A20. Yes, because these employers are Affected Taxpayers under Notice 2020-18 for whom the due date for filing Federal income tax returns and making Federal income tax payments that would be due April 15, 2020, is now July 15, 2020, the end of the grace period for these employers is also July 15, 2020 under this relief. So, for example, if an employer is a corporation with an April 15, 2020 due date for filing the Form 1120, then the grace period under section 404(a)(6) for the employer to make contributions to its workplace-based retirement plan that are treated as made on account of 2019 ends on July 15, 2020.

There also might be a related ambiguity about the meaning of a half-month or two and a half months. If a relevant year ends with November, which day in February would mark the end of two and a half months from the end of November? Does it matter whether that February has 28 or 29 days? For the point inquired about, is there a Treasury rule or subregulatory guidance that pegs the 15th of a month as the convention without regard to the number of days in a particular month?

For one version of the several proposals, see in this attachment page 1166. Pelosi_bill_COVIDSUPP3_xml.pdf

The pending legislation includes a defined term for a coronavirus distribution, and for it includes a recontribution/rollover provision similar to other disasters' provisions in recent years.

For questions about whether an employer gets a 2019 deduction for a contribution made after April 15, 2020: I.R.C. § 404(a)(6) Time When Contributions Deemed Made — For purposes of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), a taxpayer shall be deemed to have made a payment on the last day of the preceding taxable year if the payment is on account of such taxable year and is made not later than the time prescribed by law for filing the return for such taxable year (including extensions thereof).

Some lobbying groups presented ideas of this kind to Congress. From what I read in the news, one doubts Congress will act in this business week.

Yes, elective deferrals count. But many business owners have not yet made any for 2020. Some do no elective deferral until December 31. Some defer on a quarter-yearly draw, which might be determined or declared to be zero. If an elective deferral was made regarding an advance payment (grounded on a then reasonable estimate of an owner’s earned income for the year), one might consider how such a payment might be adjusted if the owner gets negative income for the year and has compensation of zero.

Some business owners might not fear an obligation for a top-heavy minimum contribution. Along with other reasons, they anticipate every owner (and every other key employee, if any) will have no contribution for 2020. I.R.C. § 416(c)(2)(B)(i): The percentage referred to in subparagraph (A) for any year shall not exceed the percentage at which contributions are made (or required to be made) under the plan for the year for the key employee for whom such percentage is the highest for the year.

If my client asks for my advice, I can explain everything. That might include warning an administrator that its interests, fiduciary and personal, might conflict with the employer’s interests. And it might include inviting my client to evaluate soberly whether it has the resources and the appetite to fight a government agency. Everything is fact-sensitive. Some clients are comfortable with decision-making, including risk decisions. Others ask “what would you decide?” Even with them, I’m mindful that the client enjoys and suffers the consequences.

The idea that 20% turnover in a period sets up a rebuttable presumption that a partial termination happened is not a rule or regulation. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/partial-termination-of-plan Without joining the debate about the IRS’s interpretation, I’ll observe this: While a careful practitioner might consider reasoning explained in subregulatory guidance and in court decisions, one may render advice that interprets the statute and the rule using different reasoning.

Even in good times, some practitioners suggest providing a both-and: the seven deemed needs and an eighth category for a need explained to the claims administrator.

The hardship rule recognizes “[e]xpenses and losses (including loss of income) incurred by the [participant] on account of a disaster declared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 100-707, provided that the [participant’s] principal residence or principal place of employment at the time of the disaster was located in an area designated by FEMA for individual assistance with respect to the disaster.” [emphasis added] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=4c951939412ec008447457c67ea011e8&mc=true&node=se26.6.1_1401_2k_3_61&rgn=div8 The President decided “an emergency determination under section 501(b) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. [§§] 5121-5207 (the “Stafford Act”).” https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/LetterFromThePresident.pdf Stafford Act § 501 / 42 U.S.C. § 5191 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2018-title42/html/USCODE-2018-title42-chap68-subchapIV-A-sec5191.htm Stafford Act § 502 / 42 U.S.C. § 5192 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2018-title42/html/USCODE-2018-title42-chap68-subchapIV-A-sec5192.htm The President’s next-to-last paragraph: “In addition, after careful consideration, I believe that the disaster is of such severity and magnitude nationwide that requests for a declaration of a major disaster as set forth in section 401(a) of the Stafford Act may be appropriate.” [emphasis added] Today, FEMA’s website shows only two places with disasters declared for individual assistance (neither about coronavirus): https://www.fema.gov/disaster/4476 https://www.fema.gov/disaster/4473. In FEMA’s website, entering “New York, New York” calls up “No disasters declared for Individual Assistance were found for this address.” https://www.disasterassistance.gov/get-assistance/address-lookup?isMap=false&address=New+York%2C+New+York

Thanks.