Bill Presson

I’m never surprised if a DRO is kicked back once. I’m always surprised if the drafting party causes one to get kicked back twice.

Of course and I don't have any issue with it. Just pointing out that FTW aren't sitting around for a month before going to the Treasury Dept.

😂

Not to defend Nationwide or your credit union, but federal taxes withheld have to be deposited pretty rapidly. Roughly speaking, if an entity had more than $50,000 withheld in 2022, they are a semiweekly depositor in 2024. Pretty sure Nationwide would hit that standard. So they're depositing all withholdings with the IRS twice a week.

Agree with Cuse. This might be helpful. https://www.napa-net.org/news-info/daily-news/case-week-qualified-separate-line-business

I would still recommend meeting the tax deduction rules for the IRS.

I’m not so sure. Even if it’s w-2 wages, an owner only plan isn’t subject to Title 1 of ERISA and that’s what drives the DOL.

https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/self-employed-individuals-calculating-your-own-retirement-plan-contribution-and-deduction

Best of luck, Ms Lisa!

Ms Lisa, you're wasting your time unless you get a lawyer. Find one in your area (nearest big city) that is familiar with ERISA QDROs.

Interesting: https://benefitslink.com/boards/topic/52525-merger-of-safe-harbor-plan-to-non-safe-harbor/

Controlled group attribution falls under Section 1563. For that an adult child’s interest is attributed to the parent only if the parent owns MORE than 50%. Same issue in reverse. So they need to be careful that the dad never add any ownership.

Well I would think they have to make the final contribution so everything else is moot.

Don’t try to fight the bank, just move the money. It’s not worth the risk.

Generally, not for profit entities refer to a retirement plan that is exclusively employer funded as a 401(a) plan. The employee funded plan is 401(k) or 403(b). With that said, an employer funded plan under 401(a) may have a one year wait for eligibility (pretty typical) but employee enrollment isn’t required. About the only thing a participant needs to do is complete a beneficiary form. But not doing that doesn’t keep one out of the plan. Whole thing seems a bit off kilter to me.

How/why are you making a contribution after the final distribution is completed for the plan? Doesn’t that make the final distribution NOT the final distribution?

Typically the admin software you use will have a 5500 module that you have to purchase. Seems like a lot of effort for a single client.

Agree with the above. You also should have had an attorney and CPA involved either the initial agreement and the acquisition agreement. Seems like those were big misses.

That’s a good start. ASPPA has several worthwhile designations to consider and pursue.

As if I needed more of a reason to never, ever let a client add these monstrosities to a plan.

Ascensus is correct.

1. Does the plan limit the number of in-service distributions? If not, why would it be excessive? 2. Does the participant pay a distribution fee each time? If so, might want to have a discussion with them to understand the consequences.

I'm a pretty big fan of autoenrollment. I'm not a big fan of auto escalation. I encourage clients to implement auto enrollment at 10% (requiring no subsequent escalation). It usually solves the problem of getting the forms back timely.

The plan document outlines the definition of compensation. I would hope that definition would be identical between the two plans.

Asking for modern software for a 412(e)(3) strikes me as ironic.