RatherBeGolfing

I would recommend the Plan Administrator (eg employer) not approve it. Credit risk is still supposed to be a portion of the approval process even if a credit report isn't pulled. I generally agree with this position. However, if enough time has passed and the employees circumstances are different than they were at the time of the first default, It shouldn't automatically disqualify an employee from a second loan. Better yet, just allow one loan (or none) and this will never be a problem

If it is as cut and dry as that, yes. The more common approach would be to amend prospectively. For example, you could amend to 1,000 hours starting 1/1/17 and keep the current participants in even if they never had 1,000 hours.

This would be my interpretation as well (in the absence of specific plan language or company policy)

This is exactly what it is. I was told as late as last year that EZ's and 5558's are still entered manually and the IRS letter generating software will kick in as soon as the mistake or omission is made by the data entry person. Simple phone call should do it, but it is aggravating that we have to do it after doing it right the first time.

Always know your document. Period. I think the example that started the conversation at Annual was a plan where the owner's wife and kids were in the plan but had never had 1000 hours. The question was, do we now have to exclude them from participation if we change eligibility to A21 1YOS? So sometimes you are trying to keep people in rather than keep them out.

This very question actually caused a stir at a session on anti-cutback at ASPPA Annual this year. The presenter (correctly) explained that since participation is not a protected right you could change the eligibility requirements and "exclude" current participants who had not met the new eligibility. I was surprised to see the number of people at the session who passionately argued that the presenter was dead wrong. I often use the "once they are in, they are in" phrase when discussing employees who normally work under 1,000 but for some reason may have a bump in hours. I think people mix those situations up sometimes

For purposes of the final rule, which established the 7 day safe harbor, a small plan is a plan with fewer than 100 participants at the beginning of the year. The 80/120 rule does not apply. A plan with a BY count of 115 would not be able to use the safe harbor, even though it may still file as a small plan for the 5500. Were the deposits made right around the 7 days mark or were they made at varying times before 7 days (2,3,4,5 days)? On limited information, it sounds like the 5500 was prepared correctly.

I disagree. Some people consider the 3% a supplement to their deferrals. So with an elimination of that, they may want to increase their deferrals. I agree. But they are not losing an employer benefit based on their participation like they are with a match, so I still think it may create an entitlement with match that isn't there with the non elective. With a match the plan is actually "soliciting" participation with a promise of an employer benefit. It is certainly bad PR for participants like the one in your example though. Would you argue that a non elective suspension is subject to a 30 notice period even if suspended before it actually started?

Well its an IRS CE Credit so it should be anyone subject to circular 230. It specifically mentions enrolled agents at the bottom

Happy Thanksgiving Bill!

Same to you!

I have had this argument before and I agree that you CAN remove the safe harbor prior to the first day of the SH plan year. However, I don't think it strictly a yes or no question. First, it depends on if it is a non elective or a match. A non elective I think you can remove at any time prior to the start of the SH plan year since it would not influence NHCEs decision to defer. If it is a match, it comes down to whether the employees had a reasonable opportunity to change their deferral election after the employer amended to remove the SH. Can you show that all employees who wanted to stop deferrals after you eliminated the match had an opportunity to do so? If yes, I think you are in the clear. A small company could easily have all their participants sign something to affirm or change their previous election even with a few days notice. This might be an issue for bigger companies and at that point I think they should stick with the 30 SH suspension notice period. I think there is at least an argument to be made that if an employer cancels the match on 12/31/2016, and cannot show that all employees had a reasonable opportunity to change their election, the employees are entitled to 30 days of matches on their deferrals.

Like I said the IRS does not offer CE but I think you can self report the credit for ASPPA credit towards the 40 hours required but should probably double check with the ASPPA on that in advance. The IRS used to offer a CE cert that was good for EA (both kinds), ERPA, and ASPPA as I used it to get nearly a 3rd of my credits in the last cycle but they stopped doing it the middle of last year I think which I think sucks. It was one of the few places you could get free continuing education credits and the content was generally at least as good as any ASPPA webcast and sometimes better. The IRS still offers credit, but not on every session. You kind of have to stalk the IRS and research each opportunity to see if it is credited. For example, they have a webinar coming up on December 15 that offers CE credit. It is not retirement specific, but credit is credit. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/webinars-for-tax-practitioners-1

FYI, the record keeping requirements ETA mentioned above can be found in Circular 230 §10:6 (h). (h) Recordkeeping requirements. (1) Each individual applying for renewal must retain for a period of four years following the date of renewal the information required with regard to qualifying continuing education credit hours. Such information includes — (i) The name of the sponsoring organization; (ii) The location of the program; (iii) The title of the program, qualified program number, and description of its content; (iv) Written outlines, course syllibi, textbook, and/or electronic materials provided or required for the course; (v) The dates attended; (vi) The credit hours claimed; (vii) The name(s) of the instructor(s), discussion leader(s), or speaker(s), if appropriate; and (viii) The certificate of completion and/or signed statement of the hours of attendance obtained from the continuing education provider. (2) To receive continuing education credit for service completed as an instructor, discussion leader, or speaker, the following information must be maintained for a period of four years following the date of renewal — (i) The name of the sponsoring organization; (ii) The location of the program; (iii) The title of the program and copy of its content; (iv) The dates of the program; and (v) The credit hours claimed.

A lot of approved providers do not automatically report your earned credits to the IRS. For me, it looks like it is hit or miss whether they show up on the site or not. That is nothing to worry about though, there is no requirement that your credits are reported to the IRS by the sponsor. The only thing required is that you report the credits you earned when you renew and that you save whatever proof of completion they gave you for four years. If you were renewed without question but some credits don't show up on the IRS website, just keep calm and carry on

Oh I agree the timing is ridiculous. Our government in action

I'm not sure if they will let you not have electronic access, but if you never register there is no login info to steal right?

We use Ftwilliams fulfillment service for 1099's, but doesn't FIRE go down like this every year? I swear I laugh at the notice every year :/ Edited for clarity...

I agree with Lou and M2C here. The regs are silent as to what happens when a non 5% owner terminates after 70 1/2 but is rehired after the RBD. A 5% owner who has started taking RMDs can't stop taking them by becoming a non 5% owner, so applying the same logic, you can't stop RMDs for a rehired non 5% owner. Lou is also correct that the IRS agreed with that position at an ASPPA annual Q&A. It is not an official position, but still...

Agreed, even if the spouses are not attributed ownership, the minor child is attributed ownership from both which still creates a CG. For community property states, you can still qualify for the exception to spousal attribution. It gets a bit more complicated but community property interest can be relinquished, and then there are other instances where property is separate property even though you are in a community property state

A great resource, but remember that not every provider will report to the IRS so you might be missing a bunch until you self report it.

Ah I miss the law school days with unlimited use of Lexis and Westlaw What class is it for? There are tons of topics within ERISA so I would pick one that you are at least somewhat interested in because it really helps when you try to get those writing juices flowing and professors pick up on that real fast. It has been a while since law school but feel free to PM me if you want to talk about topic ideas and what direction to take them J

Totally unacceptable. Run!

I have seen some really creative document provisions so I'm sure it is possible. You would probably need an IDP to do it though, so unless you have other provisions that require an IDP, or a desire to have an IDP, is it worth it when all you need is a simple amendment if limits change?

Yes, but answer depends on circumstances. Short answer, if the plan does not 1) offer annuities and 2) the employer (or related ER if a CG) does not offer any other DC plans, you can distribute without consent even if the account balance exceeds the plan's cash out limit. Even if you don't fit that answer there are ways to do it, just not as simple.