Lou S.

Reported on Form 5500. Is there some compelling reason it wasn't distributed? Also, consider sending the notices ASAP with an a explanation for the delay. It may not relieve the Emloyer of the penalties but it would look better should you have to argue with the DOL.

They are required to provide it. Just because you are filing an SF, the insurance company really doesn't know if you have assets outside the contract that may make filling the SF impossible. That said like Bird we get it, have never had any push back, and simply report the commissions on the appropriate line on the SF.

Assuming he has enough in the account and he qualifies for the COVID provisions, I don't see anything that would prohibit doing both.

It's likely going to January 1, 2021 (or 1st payroll after that). But this is an area where further IRS guidance is needed.

Chip and Pam I think your saying the same thing. Take current vested account balance which as Larry correctly points out includes the loan (lets say it's still $90K) divide by 2 and subtract current loan balance (let's call it $35K for ease) and you are are left with chip's $10K. Take Pam's 50k limit and subtract the highest balance of $35K in last 12 months (I'm assuming he had no loan before the $35K one) and you get $15K. The limit on a new loan (assuming the plan allows more than one) is the lesser of $10K or $15K so a new loan would be limited to $10K. If the Plan has enacted COVID-19 Loan Limits and this is a COVID-19 Loan situation, the results would change on maximum amount.

If it was distributed in 2019 and the offset code is 1M he has until 10/15/2020 to come up with the funds and deposit as a rollover. If he's filed his 2019 taxes, he can file an amended return. At least that's my understanding.

1M is a Loan Offset due to termination of employment or termination of the Plan. The participant has until the extended due date of their tax return for the year of the distribution to "pay back" the loan as a rollover rather than the usual 60 days and thus avoid current taxation. 1L is a Loan Default not eligible for rollover.

Wait, so she got paid, plus got a 50% QNEC and you're worried that the earnings will be taxes? Have her do an In-plan ROTH conversion if that's the issue.

If company A owns at least 80% of company B you have a Parent-Subsidiary controlled group. Which would be considered a single employer plan.

I can see that argument. And put like that makes a lot of sense. I guess it's another area where "guidance" is needed.

My understanding is it is considered "not eligible for rollover" as a way to simply bypass the 20% mandatory withholding requirement. But since you can repay the distribution at any time from 2020 - 2022 to an IRA or qualified plan and not have it taxable, it's clearly able to be "rolled over".

And the answer might be different in 2020 if it is COVID-19 related, but that's not really your question here.

I don't think for PBGC coverage you can get 22 under the regs as I agree with CB Zeller. The question is do you have to include the 2 eligible employees with 0 benefit (presumably because it is offset by a DC plan?) and it's been a while since I researched but I think the answer is yes you have to include them which would mean you have 26. If your document EXCLUDED the 2 with 0 benefit you don't need to include them but because the document INCLUDES them but they have 0 benefit you still need to count them. It's kind of like the 401(k) plan that has to be audited as a large plan because it has more than 100 (or 120) eligible participants even though many have no account balance because they chose not to defer.

It's a good reason to NOT have split eligibility if you ever think you might even be close to top heavy.

All participants are entitled to safe harbor minimum under 416 if the plan is Top Heavy. If you are are a safe harbor match or non elective plan whose only employer allocation is the safe harbor contribution you are deemed not top heavy.

Why kill yourself with accrual accounting and extensions when you can file most of your plans DC very early if you use cash basis.

The QPR still need to comply with 415 limits.

ESOP Guy I think it has to do with how the RMD language is written into your document. If something that mirrors what a RMD would have been in 2020 in a DC plan is forced to be paid it by the terms of the plan document because of how it is written you have a required payment by terms of the plan but you don't have a RMD, it is eligible for rollover, and is subject to 20% withholding.

The correction should include it's share of alloccable gains/(losses) from the the time of overage to time of correction. Participant should be put in the same position they would have been had the error not occurred.

There are no RMDs for 2020.

No Plan is REQUIRED to have a letter of determination from the IRS. All Plans are required to be timely amended for any law changes. The changes are are in the IRS List of Required Modifications. The effect of not having an IRS DL is IRS that can go back to day 1 of plan and look for potentially disqualifying language defects or missed amendments.

I think by dumb luck you may be OK on this one assuming it's not a DB plan.Based on the DOB they don't turn 70 1/2 until 2019 and the RBD for the 2019 RMD was 4/1/2020. The Cares Act suspends RMDs for 2020 and provides also provides relief for 2019 RMDs with a RBD of 4/1/2020 if they weren't already made.

If it's an inherited IRA shouldn't the code be 4 - since this is a death benefit payment? But yes the code of 1 is clearly incorrect if he is over 59 1/2.

Should be spelled out in document, but if you're using 100% of the TWB as integration level then - If the base percentage is less than 5.7% than the base percentage and excess percentage will be the same. If the base percentage is greater than 5.7% than the excess percentage is 5.7%. Dose that make sense or are you having problems backing into the base percentage to max out the owner? Also if the contribution is "small" and your plan is top-heavy make sure non-key's are getting TH minimum. There are a couple of mathematically equivalent ways to think about it but I like to think of it as Base % * compensation capped at 401(a)(17) + Excess % [(compensation capped at 401(a)(17) - Integration level) * minimum of (base percentage or 5.7%)] 5.7% can be reduced if you are using integration level other than 100% of TWB.

Refund 100% of the deferral as failed ADP, prepare 5330 for the late refund, calculate a 3% TH minimum for the employees who were employed on date of termination. Move on.