RatherBeGolfing

Luke, the main question is whether an employee can revoke consent to withhold loan payments. One side says yes, because even though a participant may have pledged to pay back via payroll withholding, not honoring such a request is likely to run afoul of state wage withholding laws. The other side says no, because the participant made an irrevocable pledge to withhold loan payments, and if there are state laws regarding wage withholding they are preempted by ERISA. Some also argue that if withholding can be revoked, the pledge was not irrevocable, and the loan did not meet the requirements for a participant loan. The counter to preemption is that since there is no ERISA requirement that repayment is made via payroll deduction, there is not conflict with state wage withholding laws. As for why it is a big deal, some would argue that if a participant with a loan has the ability to create a default/deemed distribution at will, the transaction was not a loan it was a distribution. I avoid loans whenever possible, they always create a headache. It has gotten a little better with portability and the ability to repay after termination, but I never recommend loans when designing a plan,.

And should be invested in something that is reasonable and appropriate for the situation. I don't think a checking account set up for the plan is sufficient. If the first payroll was today it would be at least 2 months until assets move to the platform.

Well I was addressing Bird's comment on the counter argument, and I don't agree with the argument. The laws don't conflict because ERISA does not require payments by payroll deductions, just regular payments. On the other hand, many (most?) states do have laws against payroll deduction after the participant withdraws consent. the laws are different, not inconsistent. We are better off just not doing loans No frustration

@MoJo beat me to it, preemption just doesn't apply here.

Adding to @Bird comment, we sure have had long and sometimes heated discussions about this. In my opinion, an employer that refuses to stop withholding loan payments at participant's request better have general counsel on speed dial. As @QDROphile points out, there are ways to get around that, but it is complicated and expensive, which is why employers wont do it for what is supposed to be a fairly simple add on. I don't think state law would prohibit the request to stop withholding. Basically, if a participant can stop having payroll deductions taken out, the plan loan program does not satisfy the requirements and the plan has operational and document issues. Edit: Last paragraph is the counter argument I usually hear, not my opinion.

Same here. It is reasonable for many of them to do it on the payroll date, and it it is pointless to make the correction process longer (especially if the client is paying for the time) when the difference is in pennies.

Eh, I'm going to disagree. If you do not have reliance on the safe harbor, its back to earliest date when it could have been segregated from employer assets. You don't get the 7 days as a freebie if you don't qualify for the safe harbor.

I think the "requirement" OP is referencing is how many investment folks explain 404c diversification requirement. That one alternative should be for capital preservation, like a MM or SVF.

https://www.tdameritrade.com/retirement-planning/small-business/individual-401k.page TDA calls it a "complete individual 401(k) Kit" with an adoption agreement, BPD, and application for investment account. @Blue_Sky does that sound like what you collected and filled out?

Some financial institution "documents" usually consists of a short "fill it in yourself" adoption agreement with references to a BPD and opinion letter, but I have never seen someone with an actual copy of the BPD to go with their AA. It could be that short with TDA, but it also might not be.

If you work with an investment advisor, CPA, or attorney, you can ask they have Third Party Administrator (TPA) they work with or can recommend.

Why? There is no benefit to maintaining two one participant plans.

Thanks for this, it gave me an excuse to go down the rabbit hole to look at why they are different and why limits are adjusted using different indices. I do love some history of the Bureau of Labor Statistics with my coffee...

Thanks Mike! We are cobbling together the full picture here ?

At first thought, it seemed off. But, you are talking about such a short loss period that an extra day is a significant increase. If it is 4 days late and you add 1 more day, its a 25% increase. If it is 104 days late and you add 1 day, it is less than 1% increase. The math: 4/30 is $2.13 5/1 is $4.27 5/2 is $6.40 5/3 is $8.53 5/4 is $10.66 5/5 is $12.80 5/7 is $17.06 5/15 is $34.10 Counting 4/29 as a day in the loss period: Amount doubles from 2 days to 3 days (2.13 to 4.27) +1 day Amount doubles from 3 days to 5 days (4.27 to 8.53) +2 days Amount doubles from 5 days to 9 days (8.53 to 17.06) +4 days Amount doubles from 9 days to 17 days (17.06 to 34.10) +8 days The amount due doubles as the number of days late you add to the prior number of days doubles.

don't have it handy at the moment, but there is the IRS memo from 1998 that says it shall be in writing. I don't believe it says before, and we can probably come up with 20 reasonable interpretations of "written"

That really isn't the concern either, they are fine with you raising your prices. They might be a lot more concerned about prices going down. Theoretically, if your competitor charges X and you raise your prices from X-2 to X-1, someone else will step in and charge X-2 (as long as you and your primary competitor does not control the market). You raising your prices slightly isn't anti-competitive. On the other hand, If you and your primary competitor "collaborate" and decide to lower your prices to X-3 and X-4 (and keep them there), you might be able to gain a significant share of the market without cannibalizing each others customer base. That would be anti-competitive.

$999,999 Race to the bottom and all that

Good point.

Don't we? There is nothing in the statutory language that would support making them "untouchable" by an otherwise proper exclusion.

Must....grind....out...few...more....years decades...before....retirement!!! ?

I'll play along Its (mostly) exempt from ERISA because there are no employees to protect. It would be odd to then exempt it from the rules that dictate when employees must become eligible to participate. Unless I have missed something, the LTPT rules will apply, and will turn many of them into former solo's.

It is not.

Agree with both answers above.

DOL said back in 09(?) that you need to get a new one signed each year, and I believe that is still their position. We get one every year. I don't see a liability or a problem with an evergreen authorization though. You still need the signed Form 5500 from the client, so you can assume that they reviewed and approved when they signed.