RatherBeGolfing

DRO itself does not contain any of the relevant information, instead it just incorporates the marital settlement agreement by reference. The MSA states that the AP is entitled to 50% of the marital portion of Ps account. It also says that through the DRO, P is to receive $20,000 from APs share of the marital portion. In this case, the AP will be entitled to something like $50,000 from Ps retirement account, but per the MSA, the DRO is supposed to both divide the marital portion and direct payment of $20,000 of APs share to the participant.

This is a new one for me. Short DRO incorporates the much longer Marital Settlement Agreement by reference. The MSA awards 50% of the funds accrued from date of marriage to date of the divorce, adjusted for earnings (marital portion). The MSA further states that Participant shall receive $20,000 from APs share of the marital portion of Participant's retirement account by virtue of the same DRO that divides the marital portion. I may be grumpy due to the lazy DRO which made me go through the MSA to find the relevant language, but this doesn't sound right to me. If AP has agreed to pay P $20,000 from APs share of the marital portion, P can use the MSA to enforce that agreement. It shouldn't be the plans responsibility to pay P from P's retirement account using a DRO that assigns the benefit to the AP but with part of the award payable to P. Am I missing something here?

Its rare, but it happens.

Its been a while, but I have contacted the entities division at IRS in the past. I don't have the number available, but I believe you fax them with a request to change the PN, with an explanation, and they fix it in their records for multiple years. I had to do it for several clients after the IRS took it upon themselves to change the PN for several of my plans in 2014 or 2015.

I think it's pretty clear. Based on OPs question, he turned 70 1/2 in 2019 while he was a 5% owner. He was a 5% owner in the plan year ending in the calendar year he turned 70 1/2, which means he takes RMDs as a 5% owner. The fact that the 2020 RMD was waived, and that he sold his ownership interest, is immaterial. He is due an RMD for 2021 as a 5% owner, you cant unring that bell.

No citations handy, but I just looked at it this morning, and after some cross referencing: 5% owner on any day of the plan year that ends in the calendar year in which the employee turns 70 1/2 or 72

Salary is going to depend more on the TPA, the location, their specific needs, etc. There is a demand for employees at the moment, so that is in your favor. We pay for our employees credentialing, conferences, etc. 4 year break may not be a big deal, it all depends on the position. Your H4 visa could be an issue, especially for a smaller TPA. Since the H1B is temporary by definition, some will be cautious to make an investment (time and money) for an employee that is only eligible to work for a limited period. If you are early in your first 3 year cycle, it would probably give you a better shot. Good luck!

@David Schultz In addition to what CB mentioned above, throw in a DB plan and you have to apply 1563 attribution for the PBGC (as opposed to the 318 attribution for filing purposes).

They have to. Attribution under 318 makes father and daughter 2% S Corp shareholders. For 5500 purposes they are threated as partners, so 5500EZ it is.

Nope. Termination is no longer a distributable event

They disappear to another dimension. Few have crossed over, only one has returned, matthew mcconaughey. He reported vast wastelands full of 401k plan documents, annual reports, and participant notices. And socks. Soooooo many socks. And yet, not a single matching pair. I need coffee...

I agree, its when it leaves the ER control. I don't think this rule needs to be pro-participant though, if the delay between employer and participant is unreasonable, thats a fiduciary breach issue rather than a prohibited transaction.

Why you would not count 1/4-1/5?

1/4 no question. It is only deemed timely if separated during the safe harbor window. The 7 days are not applicable if you go beyond the safe harbor window. I think the only question for this type of calculation is do you use the day of separation from the employer assets, or the day it cleared the participant account. But that becomes a fiduciary issue rather than late contributions.

I don't see how you possibly add enough revenue without going deep into 3(16) services. Certainly not enough for the potential risk you are taking on. Even less feasible for a smaller provider that isn't already staffed to keep up with the policy decisions, education, and training that comes with it.

What does this mean? Which information? Trust records? Payroll? Employer records? Why isnt it available? Not available is rather vague. Have they done all the possibly can do? Is cost a factor? Like Bill, I have always been able to get what I need in the end, but some of them werent pretty. I even had a client who had several decades of records destroyed in an explosion manage to get their audit done after considerable effort and expense.

See the comments above. Its a lot of potential issues with very little return for you. You are probably better off streamlining/automating the back and forth for signed documents.

This is NOT a 411(d)(6) issue. Continued participation if you no longer satisfy eligibility is not a protected benefit. It may be a document/operational issue if you dont word the amendment correctly or if you document automatically grandfathers such an employee. It may be a discrimination issue if part of a pattern of amendments that are in effect discriminatory.

Not a specific software, but I saw a bunch of them when I was with a CPA firm. They arent cheap, but look at CPA scanning and organizing software. They do everything from W-2s, K-1s, and brokerage statements.

If it's an ACA, not EACA or QACA, yes.

My experience has been in line with MoJo's when "invited", but declined if not prompted by agency action of some sort. The only exception would be cases where it was bad enough that we said "we either fix it all the way or you need to find another service provider"

Can you go into more detail? This isnt my area of expertise, but I have looked at disclaimers as a tax issue first, and benefits issue second. Without a qualified disclaimer, the disclaiming party retains the tax liability per the code, right? From a plan perspective, it doesn't make much sense for tax liability and benefit to go to different people.

I agree with BG here as well, protect yourself from any fallout of this ticking timebomb. As for 2020, they may actually be better off with DFVCP. If they got a 45 day letter now, are you that confident that you could get two years worth of audits done in time? The DFVCP user fees are rather small compared to possible penalties if they are not eligible for DFVCP. I'm more surprised that the TPA filed using the short plan year exception for the first year without actually having a short plan year. Did they even indicate on the return that it was a short plan year? What date did they use for the effective date?

Is 12 months less than 7 months? Agree with BG and Bill.

The plan had to allow loans first since CARES temporarily increased the limits rather than establish an additional type of loan. I think retro amendment is ok as long as long as the loans were made primarily to NHCEs.