Lou S.

We are no longer a service provider to the plan and unable to assist you with the information you are requesting as we have no access to that data and no contractual agreement with that Plan or Sponsor. Please contact the ERISA Plan Administrator and/or Plan Trustee. Our last records which we have previously provided to you indicate they are X and Y. The last known address and phone in our records is _______ and _________. We wish you luck in enforcing the right of the participants with the legally responsible parties but are unable to offer any further assistance. Just repeat that ever time they call.

I would put the date of the transfer as final day. I mean often times we terminate a plan as of X date but the last distribution day is X + Y and we we report the date of the last distribution that closed the trust as the last day for 5500. I see this as an analogous situation.

IDK, amending isn't that hard and you have piece of mind. I guess if you have an acknowledgement file that says it was accepted you can make a call whether or not to amend and supply them with the attachment should it come up later but do you want to risk the IRS saying you made an incomplete filing? I mean I doubt they would for something relatively small like that but I'm not the IRS and can't speak to how that would view it.

I don't think I'd change a thing on the filing with exception of checking the amended box and adding the correct attachment.

Any time not sure, the best course is to refer to them to legal counsel.

Hardships have a 10% default federal withholding but you can opt out and elect a lower percentage, even 0%, or can elected a higher percentage if you want. But Hardships are not eligible for rollover and therefore not subject to the mandatory 20% federal withholding.

If you are in black out, they may not have loaded your loan on to the new providers platform yet. Check the day after you come out of blackout. If doesn't show up, talk to the person in your company who handles the 401(k) and tell them they need to straighten this out or you'll contact the DOL.

The only thing I might caution is since there is only one NHCE and they are not deferring I think I would caution the client to keep good records that the safe harbor notice was in fact distributed and would encourage them to have an "opt out or 0% election" signed by that NHCE just in case the IRS might question it.

Yes you can, meets the ACP exemption.

I believe it causes disqualification problems for the SIMPLE-IRA contributions in the years in which both Plans are maintained. The employer is not allowed to operate another Retirement Plan and I believe that includes 403(b) Plans. Though neither SIMPLE-IRA or 403(b) is the area I focus on so I could be wrong. But my understanding is the same as yours.

While technically correct, I think it is misleading to folks who sign up thinking they are going to get 80% of the first 6% which is a 4.8% match when they are getting capped at 4% which effectively is 80% of the first 5% and 0% from 5 to 6. It just seem like catching folks in the small print. It guess it comes down to how you communicate it to participants.

I think you can do it with the 4% cap. But you are not really matching 80% of the first 6% in that case. I don't see why you don't just communicate the match as 80% of the first 5% because that's what you are actually doing in this case and you would be withing the rules.

Is 80% of the first 6% a fixed match in the Plan document? If yes, you are fine. If it is a discretionary match where they are declaring 80% of the first 6% then I think you have an ACP test as the discretionary match can exceed 4% of pay.

I think if you want to do this with IRS blessing since it well past the 2 year self correction mark, you would be looking at VCP with the suggested correction be that the plan disgorge the funds back to a ROTH IRA since it was not supposed to accept rollover funds from a ROTH IRA in the first place. Assuming the participant can provide the documentation that the funds did actually come from a ROTH IRA originally. What documentation did the Plan get in 2018 to suggest that it was from a traditional IRA and an allowable rollover in?

Why can't they unwind this? They erroneously made deposits. That said I don't see where the IRS would have an issue with the proposed correction.

Start by filing a claim for benefits with the Plan. Request a copy of the summary plan description and submit a copy of the beneficiary designation form showing you as beneficiary and proof that you were his spouse at time of death. Send this by registered mail or overnight delivery with signature required so you a have a record of noticing them. If they are still non responsive, I would suggest contacting an ERISA attorney to assist you and/or contact your local branch of the Department of Labor and request their assistance. I myself am not an attorney and this is not legal advice.

Who is transmitting the withholding? What EIN was attached to the withholding? That's who would be be doing the Tax reporting and which EIN will be used.

I would say you have your answer. Direct the participant to the claims procedures in the SPD and send them back to the Fiduciary who "froze" withdrawals.

Yes that is acceptable. If they have terminated and he is now electing a rollover, you can also use the DC method that will typically give a lower RMD.

A good question and one you should probably send back to the ERISA Plan Administrator or Plan Trustee to direct you in how to act with respect to withdrawals in this time period.

It sounds like you did everything correct. If the distribution is bieng processed in 2025 and the loan is being off set in 2025, it will be taxable income in 2025. You will presumably send her two 2025 1099-R one for the distribution of cash and one for the offset of the loan since they have separate 1099-R codes.

So I'm curious, is it not treated as a failure if you self correct but the excise tax is due? And if you go through VCP it is clearly not treated as failure and the excise tax is likely waived in full in most cases. The reason I ask is because the decision to do a VCP submission could hinge on the size of the excise tax. If the excise tax is smaller than the cost of a VCP submission, the sponsor might just want self Correct and pay the participant's excise tax rather than go through a VCP filing.

Keep good records on timing of deposits and which calendar year limit is applied to which deposit so you know what actually goes in your tests. I'm going to assume from your post this is the first you had recharacterization due to failed test and that he had no calendar year catch-up in prior years. For calendar year 2024 the limit is $30,500. To make it somewhat easy I'm going to say the participant defers $15,250 in the first 6 months and $15,250 in the second 6 months of calendar year 2024. You do your 6/30/2024 test and find he needs a "refund" of $2,500 to pass the test. Since he has only deferred $15,250 as of 6/30/2024 you have no refund but have now used $2,500 of the 2024 limit as of your 6/30/2024 test date. So when he defers the remaining $15,250 in the second half of 2024 $5,000 is recharecterized as 2024 catch-up (because $2,500 was already rechareterized on 6/30/24) and does not go into your testing for the plan year ending 6/30/2025. The remaining $11,250 along with any deferrals up to the 2025 402(g) limit in the first half of 2025 go into your 6/30/2025 testing. Hope that's clear and helps.

Did missed RMDs get added to self correction? I know for a long while they required VCP. If this got expanded, and it might have in the "somewhat" recent expansion of self correction it would be welcome news.

I don't think one year is a hard fast rule. More like facts and circumstances but if you are inside the 1 year window the IRS is fine with it. But if you are concerned, it couldn't hurt to have a new resolution re-terminating the plan or affirming the plan termination. You might also want to check if the delay requires them to adopt any additional conforming amendments. As long as your "freeze" amendment isn't rescinded because you are deeming the termination no longer in effect it shouldn't have any material impact that I can think of but you may now need a Valuation and Schedule SB for 2024 that you weren't planning on which if the plan is underfunded could give rise to a required contribution.