Jump to content

Bri

Senior Contributor
  • Posts

    1,080
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    57

Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    Bri got a reaction from Peter Gulia in Beneficiary Designation   
    I thought it was the opposite - you don't have to offer annuities but if you do then the spouse has to agree to any annuity version that's not the QJSA.  Yeah, been a while.... 
  2. Like
    Bri reacted to Peter Gulia in Beneficiary Designation   
    On September 6, 2000, the Treasury department published a final rule to amend the 1988 rule.
    Under that amendment, a plan sponsor may amend its plan to remove an optional form of benefit (including an optional annuity) if the plan provides a single-sum distribution form otherwise identical to the optional form of benefit eliminated. Such an amendment must not apply to a participant with an “annuity starting date” earlier than the 90th day after “the participant has been furnished a summary that reflects the amendment and that satisfies the requirements of 29 CFR [§] 2520.104b–3[.]” (I’ve simplified those explanations, and omitted some conditions.)
    For the details: Special Rules Regarding Optional Forms of Benefit Under Qualified Retirement Plans [final rule], 65 Federal Register 53901-53909 (Sept. 6, 2000), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2000-09-06/pdf/00-22668.pdf.
    Also, the Treasury department published further amendments in 2004, 2005, and 2006.
    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2004-03-24/pdf/04-6220.pdf
    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2005-08-12/pdf/05-15960.pdf
    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2005-09-13/pdf/05-17959.pdf
    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2005-09-27/pdf/05-19222.pdf
    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-08-09/pdf/E6-12885.pdf
  3. Like
    Bri reacted to truphao in Plan sequence number on rollover 401k   
    You are not starting a new Plan, you are simply restating the existing Plan to a new Document provider (E-Trade).   Please make sure you implement this properly, the penalties for messing this up are very severe.
  4. Like
    Bri got a reaction from Lou S. in Does this cross-tested plan pass??   
    I can't *imagine* your plan document requires it to be tested for nondiscrimination solely on a benefits basis. 
    Do your rate groups on an allocations basis, and all the rate groups will pass > 70%.  And then (except for the random possible exceptions which we as a pension community will remind you of in subsequent comments) you should be good.
     
  5. Like
    Bri reacted to Lou S. in The 401(a)(17) Contribution Limit and Multiple Employers   
    Under the code yes, but what does the document say about compensation?
  6. Like
    Bri got a reaction from Jakyasar in Combo plan testing - different results in for different software   
    I would think there's one value per person for 414(s) compensation as used in the testing, as it sounds that these plans are being aggregated to pass their stuff.  And as such, one value to use to determine the minimum gateway. 
    (happy to be wrong)
    Participants always enter both plans at the same time, right?  (With only the comp definition different?)
     
     
  7. Like
    Bri got a reaction from Lou S. in Combo plan testing - different results in for different software   
    I would think there's one value per person for 414(s) compensation as used in the testing, as it sounds that these plans are being aggregated to pass their stuff.  And as such, one value to use to determine the minimum gateway. 
    (happy to be wrong)
    Participants always enter both plans at the same time, right?  (With only the comp definition different?)
     
     
  8. Like
    Bri got a reaction from Lou S. in Leave of Absence & Contribution Eligibility   
    Guess it depends on what the document says...
  9. Like
    Bri got a reaction from Luke Bailey in 1099-R reporting for rehired employees?   
    If the employee had a legitimate termination of employment, took a withdrawal upon that distributable event in the year of age 55 or later, and then was later rehired, I would think the withdrawal still was exempt from the 10% because that's determined at the time of the withdrawal, no?
  10. Like
    Bri reacted to Bill Presson in correcting coverage failure   
    Also depends on what your document says about how to correct the failure. Some give specific instructions and some are silent. You should prefer the document be silent. That way you have all the options available. 
  11. Like
    Bri got a reaction from Luke Bailey in Compensation Issue   
    I would at least double-check to see if the BPD says anything about how deferral elections may or may not apply to "imputed income" rather than a straight wage payment to the employee.
     
  12. Like
    Bri reacted to CuseFan in Freezing A Cash Balance Plan   
    Depends. You can freeze a DBP, including a CBP, before accruals/credits are earned. If the plan has a 1000-hour requirement then you need to freeze before anyone is credited with 1000 hours. If there is no hours requirement, accruals are earned from day 1 of the plan year but you could freeze further accruals and limit to the portion of the year earned (for example, freeze effective 2/1 after a month's worth of credits have been earned).
    Unless it's an owner-only plan, you need to provide an advance 204(h) notice at least 45 days (large plans >100) or 15 days (small plans <100) prior to the effective date of the amendment. Such amendment needs to be adopted on or before the stated effective date or the adoption date becomes the effective date (i.e., cannot be adopted retroactively).
    Those are the relevant timing issues for executing the plan freeze, the employer's decision deadline is a function of these timing concerns and it's actuary's/TPA's lead time requirements for providing the necessary items (resolution, amendment, 204(h) notices).
  13. Like
    Bri got a reaction from CuseFan in Vesting At Retirement Age   
    Well heck, if we're getting semantic/pedantic, let's go further and say it's the 5th anniversary of the first day of the plan year in which participation commenced. 
  14. Haha
    Bri got a reaction from Calavera in Vesting At Retirement Age   
    Well heck, if we're getting semantic/pedantic, let's go further and say it's the 5th anniversary of the first day of the plan year in which participation commenced. 
  15. Like
    Bri reacted to QDROphile in QDRO questions going through divorce Fidelity Pension   
    Essentially, I agree with, “Get a different lawyer.” Maybe it does not have to be so dramatic. In the retirement professionals community, both lawyers and non-lawyers have a general expectation that most domestic relations lawyers do not understand retirement plans, and pension plans in particular (because they also include actuarial principles). Most domestic relations lawyers also know that they do not understand retirement plan law. Consequently, domestic relations lawyers will have a relationship with one or more lawyers who understand retirement plans and QDRO law. Before even contemplating a QDRO one must consider the design and provisions of the retirement plans to be divided in the divorce and how to measure and describe the interest that each party in the divorce will have in the plan or plans. The primary divorce lawyer can associate with, or be advised by, a lawyer who is competent to work with retirement plans, ultimately including drafting a QDRO. If your lawyer seems lacking in understanding or answers that can be conveyed to you so that you understand, then your lawyer needs to connect with another lawyer for help with the retirement plans. Or you get another lawyer.
  16. Like
    Bri got a reaction from Luke Bailey in Rollover before Required Beginning Date   
    And of course, I overlooked that it's still the 2024 minimum being paid based off 2023, so I do think they're going to have to recoup some of that IRA rollover to satisfy the RMD.  (And adjust the amount coming out of the IRA for earnings since it was an ineligible rollover contribution.  Hmmm, thinking out loud has me presuming only the "principal" amount coming from the IRA satisfies the RMD for the plan, like you couldn't count some of the earnings towards the RMD.)
  17. Like
    Bri got a reaction from Luke Bailey in Rollover before Required Beginning Date   
    If the termination is 12/15/24, isn't the RBD 4/1/2025 so that the 2023 balance is out of the equation?
  18. Like
    Bri got a reaction from Luke Bailey in 0% prior yr NHCE ADP   
    Or, if it's not too late, allocate a QNEC to last year's NHCEs?
  19. Like
    Bri got a reaction from Bill Presson in Compensation Issue   
    I would at least double-check to see if the BPD says anything about how deferral elections may or may not apply to "imputed income" rather than a straight wage payment to the employee.
     
  20. Haha
    Bri got a reaction from Paul I in Vesting At Retirement Age   
    Well heck, if we're getting semantic/pedantic, let's go further and say it's the 5th anniversary of the first day of the plan year in which participation commenced. 
  21. Like
    Bri reacted to David Schultz in Safe Harbor Match by Payroll - failing compensation ratio test   
    A plan does not lose safe harbor status.  It has a failure that needs to be corrected.  Follow the terms of the plan document. 
    Assuming you have a pre-approved plan document, and this plan was designed to be an ADP/ACP safe harbor, the document certainly says that the plan will satisfy ADP/ACP testing by satisfying the safe harbor requirements.  It must still do that - in a nondiscriminatory way. 
    I bet somewhere in the plan document (buried in the BPD section on safe harbor contributions) it also says that the SH contribution must be based on a nondiscriminatory (not just reasonable) definition of comp. If the plan didn't do so, it has an operational failure that needs to be corrected by doing what it is supposed to do (no -11(g) amendment as this isn't a nondiscrimination or coverage failure, it was an operational failure). 
    The plan should recalculate the match based on a nondiscriminatory definition of comp. (and I would do an annual/true-up allocation since the correct periodic match wasn't deposited by the end of the following quarter). That'll be in the BPD as well.
  22. Like
    Bri got a reaction from acm_acm in Safe Harbor Match by Payroll - failing compensation ratio test   
    I like Lou's idea.  but wonder......
    Is there any thought that because the payroll-period SH match on the commissions would not have been deposited quarterly as is typically required, that somehow the adjustment now also has to include earnings from what would have been those "end of following quarter" deadlines?
  23. Like
    Bri reacted to Paul I in Transfer employment within controlled group - a termination?   
    In a controlled group, moving from one employer to another within the group is not a distributable event from either employer's plan. 
    Transferring an account from one plan to another will require each plan to have provisions to allow the transfer out and to accept the transfer in as a trust-to-trust transfer.  This may not be a great idea if there are differences between the protected benefits in the two plans
  24. Like
    Bri got a reaction from Gilmore in Rollover before Required Beginning Date   
    And of course, I overlooked that it's still the 2024 minimum being paid based off 2023, so I do think they're going to have to recoup some of that IRA rollover to satisfy the RMD.  (And adjust the amount coming out of the IRA for earnings since it was an ineligible rollover contribution.  Hmmm, thinking out loud has me presuming only the "principal" amount coming from the IRA satisfies the RMD for the plan, like you couldn't count some of the earnings towards the RMD.)
  25. Like
    Bri got a reaction from Luke Bailey in Safe Harbor Match by Payroll - failing compensation ratio test   
    I like Lou's idea.  but wonder......
    Is there any thought that because the payroll-period SH match on the commissions would not have been deposited quarterly as is typically required, that somehow the adjustment now also has to include earnings from what would have been those "end of following quarter" deadlines?
×
×
  • Create New...