RatherBeGolfing

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.

Yes. For my stacked match plans I calculate the exact percentage for the fixed match and simply amend year by year as needed.

Yep, that was how I looked at it too. And if I missed that when I did my final fee calculation I would just eat the cost and get it over with.

I agree with your guess. Little has constructive ownership through the option, so you have your controlled group. You can restrict an option to price, and all you need for constructive ownership is the option, there does not have to be any type of intent to actually exercise it. Following that logic, the probability of Little ever having the ability to exercise the option is is irrelevant for constructive ownership. J

Typically it's because no one wants to pay for another year of administration. I agree that is normally the clients position. Maybe I'm just a little conservative when it comes to things like this and I simply wouldn't give the client an option that cuts corners to save $.

FWIW I have been told no on this before as the RMD is not just an obligation of the participant but also a qualification issue for the plan. On a practical level, I know that people do it this way and hope for the best. In the few instances where I have had this come up, I have been able to get the RMD amount reversed and paid from the plan so that we could show that the mistake was corrected. I have never had it come up on audit so I can't speak to how an auditor would look at it.

I agree with you 100%. I only do them as a courtesy to other service providers I do business with. They do not actually generate revenue, and the client needs a lot more hand holding.

Is there a reason why another plan year is a big deal? If you do all your other distributions in 2016 and you are left just the one owner to deposit and distribute in 2017 when you can accurately determine comp, the 2017 plan year should be a very minor inconvenience that could be dispatched in a few hours. Am I missing a reason why 2017 must be avoided even if doing so creates more problems than it solves? Not trying to be flippant about it, I just don't see a problem with going into 2017 to do it right.