Bill Presson

Perfect. Thank you, ma'am.

Missing some info. If the sellers only sold the assets, why is there a new corporation and a new EIN? Doesn't make sense.

Very glad to have this board. Hope everyone is doing well.

I don't see how. And, even if they could, how much do they really think they'll save?

Seems to be the smart move would be to announce 9/22 "based on our current interpretation" and state that "the IRS might provide further clarification at a later date."

That's where we go from free guidance to needing to be hired. We don't work on SIMPLE plans as a general rule. But you need to find someone that does and pay them for their advice.

Here's Robert's response specifically to the RMD question. https://www.asppa-net.org/news/cares-act—optional-or-required-part-3—rmd-waivers For the record I'm not sure I completely agree with him on a blanket basis.

2009-82 isn't the CARES Act, so I'm not worried about that. And Robert is lumping it all together, so I'm not sure it's specific. Haven't seen the ERIC info other than what you posted.

Our interpretation is that all RMDs are waived for 2020 and it is not optional.

You can go to your employer or to an attorney or to the DOL at this point and ask for help. But I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone that goes 5 years and doesn't look at a paycheck or question a w-2 or ask to see a statement or doesn't go online. It's incomprehensible to me to go that long.

I thought he gave you a lot of good information and advice.

Agree with shERPA. Don't care about the ADP testing if we can get TH relief.

Ray, on the service credits, I meant for eligibility as well as vesting. We do have an employee in Mandeville and I work with a big advisor in that area. Don't get there as often as I would like.

Can still do the same thing even in an asset sale. I would assume all the B employees would go to work on A's payroll. Might need to look a providing appropriate service credits.

They can just amend the plan and become the sponsoring employer. Might change the plan name, but not sure it's required. As to the tax id, if you're referring to the EIN of the sponsor, then it would change in this scenario. If you're referring to the tax id of the plan, it wouldn't.

This has come up a time or two on other threads (I brought it up as well) and the consensus seems to be that the definition will be expanded to include this. But nothing formal that I've seen yet. WCP

Several of us across multiple firms were discussing this a few days ago and the majority were going to use Code 2 (it was not a consensus) since that specifically says the distribution qualifies for an exception to the 10% penalty. We know the CARES Act withdrawal does qualify. Code 1 says there is no known exception and I don't think that's correct. We also think it's likely that the IRS will issue a specific code. But that doesn't help the providers that send the 1099 with the check.

Additional question on "qualified individuals" - i was a little surprised to see that an economic hardship because of a loss of job by a spouse isn't also included. Am I missing something? WCP

I'm going to go out on a limb here though and suggest that the OP wants the real estate agent to participate in a 401(k) plan other than setting up their own (as Larry points out). I think that may be the issue.

BG, are you meaning second paragraph? Because Cynch says HCEs are excluded from match but owners are getting a match.

Not yet. It's part of the discussion that the ARA is having with the IRS.

I've only ever heard it as meaning "enlarged prostate." ?

I just know there are issues and it's been asked on here a lot. Will the RK even issue the check?

?

I don't think so. But if he can wait a few days, the legislation currently being worked on increases the amount to $100k or 100% of the account. But it's not done yet.