Christine Roberts

I was curious about ChatGPT and threw it a few EB questions, below. With further prompts it would probably have gotten me closer to what I was looking for, which was a discussion of fundedness and the DOL trust non-enforcement policy. I haven't sorted out how I feel about this device. I do know that my mom won't use ATMs, and I think that the uptake of legal information from AI will be rapider with each generation. Whether it will ever fully replace legal advice and strategy remains to be seen.

I wonder if employers who have a liquidity event on their horizon and the prospect of ERISA due diligence may have concerns about SCP versus VCP due to the lack of IRS imprimatur. (I wonder the same thing about the proposed self-correction under VFCP.) Also there is the issue of eligibility for SCP based on the established practices and procedures requirement. Imagine a newly adopted 401(k) plan that mis-applies the plan definition of compensation from day one. Does it have established practices and procedures? If so what are they and how are they described/evidenced for purposes of SCP eligibility.

Just received a query re paying out based on a small estate affidavit and this thread was a gold mine. Peter, thanks for kicking it off and for furthering the conversation.

They are working on this amendment but it is not available as of the date of this writing.

Thanks.

Has anyone seen language from FIS Relius? (Yes, I posted on that board as well.) Or any other source? I believe FTWilliam has a SECURE Amendment for its NQ plans but have not seen it; am also wondering if there is other amendment language available out there. The amendment is due to be adopted by year end.

Has anyone received from FIS Relius a SECURE amendment for required minimum distributions for use with their 457(b) plan document? The amendment is due to be adopted by 12/31/2022. Thanks.

I posted on this topic at my blog https://bit.ly/3SHfRmD and thanked Peter and "other colleagues at the Benefitslink Message Boards" for sharing their thoughts about the new enforcement budget. I appreciate your input (both on these boards, and on the post, if you have any).

Thanks Peter. Also for us practitioners, the IRS funding is a thumb on the scale against clients tempted to play audit roulette (to mix my metaphors gratuitously).

Has anyone had any information as to the degree the IRS budget increase under the Inflation Reduction Act will flow down to TE/GE division and possibly impact plan audit activity? I read Chuck Rettig's letter about not focusing on small taxpayers but do we know anything about allocation of these funds and the degree to which it will impact plan enforcement? Any comments and surmises welcome.

I've had EBSA confirm that the 7-business day safe harbor is not used for earnings calculation purposes, the date the amounts normally would have been deposited is instead. Or, 1/6 as C.B. Zeller suggests.

Peter's comments are on point with my experience. Investing in real property with tax-qualified funds - retirement plans or IRAs - raises a host of issues in addition to the PT issue, some of which are touched on in this thread. https://eforerisa.com/2012/04/29/reality-check-on-ira-investments-in-real-estate/

Participant submitted the paperwork for a Coronavirus Related Distribution on December 24, 2020. The assets were transferred out of the participant account and plan trust account on December 26th. They were transferred to a paying agent. The paying agent didn’t send out the distribution until January 4, 2021. The paying agent is refusing to treat this as a coronavirus related distribution because the check wasn’t sent until January 4, 2021. (Past the 12/31 CRD deadline.) They will be issuing a 2021 1099 distribution for the full $100,000. Thus the participant will have to incur immediate tax consequences and penalty for taking this money out. Has anyone else had any issues like this? We are trying to build a case that because the money left the participant account and the plan’s trust account on December 26th that this should be credited as a 2020 Coronavirus Related Distribution and the paying agent should treat it as such.

I agree Luke.

NQDC Plan provides for payment of benefits in annual installments each March. Termination of employment generally results in a forfeiture of further payments. However, under certain conditions, such as, termination by company other than for cause, payments are to continue when otherwise due under the plan, but conditioned upon the participant signing a release of claims (no deadline specified). Where the release is not a payment trigger (rather, failure to sign a release apparently results in a forfeiture) is it necessary to set a deadline for the release to be returned/and for the revocation period to expire?