RatherBeGolfing

I feel like it is Déjà vu every time there is a medical conference somewhere. "Yes Dr. Acula, I understand that your brother at Google can make this kind of contribution, but it is not going to work for your plan...."

Ha ha, I remember that call too. I also remember that plenty of people called them out on it, pointing out that some people could indeed get a secured loan at Prime, and certainly at P+1. And seem to recall that they had to come out with commentary after this call, clarifying the they NOT say that Prime+1 was unreasonable, even though that was pretty much what the presenter said while pushing P+2. In fact, don't they still to this day refuse to say whether P+1 is reasonable or unreasonable? And they still approve documents (or at least they did before post-PPA) with an option to hardcode interest at P, P+1, or P+2.

Have you looked at MS Planner? It doesn't measure up to the CPA/law firm tracking software, but it may work for you if pension pro pension pal is more than you need.

You also disregard the sec 165 requirement that only losses in excess of 10% AGI are deductible

I agree. I also believe this was answered by IRS at ASPPA Annual many moons ago. You might be able to find it in the transcripts of the Q&As on ASPPAs website, pre-2000 years. Its not a "here is the citation" answer, its more along the lines of it is not prohibited. I think @Larry Starr was closely involved with these Q&As, so Larry if you are available to chime in ?...

Ah, the fun one can have with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure...

I think the misunderstanding has to do with how the documents are structured. While Peter did a great job of explaining the finer points of both complaint and order, I'm going to put it in very simple terms. Everything in the complaint is not alleged breach of fiduciary duty. Most of the complaint is a statement of the facts (or at least what plaintiff claims are the facts) and relevant law. The actual alleged breaches start on page 23 of 28 (paragraph 63). What you are reading as an "alleged breach" are just the facts of the case as presented by the plaintiff. The "one size fits all" wording in the complaint is not trustee directed vs participant directed, it is the investment strategy of the plan (or lack thereof). The order to dismiss is not an opinion on what has been alleged, it is only a ruling on the motion to dismiss. It really has nothing to do with what happened in the case, it is a ruling that the complaint itself alleges something that could be true and for which relief could be granted. Any discussion in the order has to assume that the facts as alleged are true. Part of the discussion in the order goes as far as to say

Thank you Peter. Clearly this is another case of imprudent investments (fairly common) and not following the IPS (also common), and not an issue of pooled vs participant directed accounts. The complaint mentions (and misstates) that participants were not allowed to direct investments, but does not claim that this itself is a fiduciary breach (which would have been a summary judgment slam dunk). Rather, they use this to set up their claim of imprudent investments and failure to follow the IPS. Incorrect. Also incorrect.

No. It is segregated when it is no longer under the employers control. Like when you submit withheld taxes to the feds/state, or deposit contributions to the plan.

No. It is as soon as reasonable. EDIT: 100 or more. Safe harbor is available for plans with less than 100 participants on the first day of the plan year. You calculate interest from the loss date. If the deposit could have reasonably been made on pay day, that is the loss date.

Not quite. General rule: participant assets be segregated from employer assets as of the earliest date on which such contributions or repayments can reasonably be segregated. Safe harbor: For plans with fewer than 100 participants, an amount deposited no later than the 7th business day following he day on which such amount is received by the employer will be deemed to to be contributed or repaid to such plan on the earliest date on which such contributions or participant loan repayments can reasonably be segregated from the employer's general assets. In no event shall a date later than the 15th business day of the month following the month in which the participant contribution or participant loan repayment amounts are received be considered reasonable under the general rule.

If she signs off on documents for husbands business, can we assume she is an employee of husbands business, just without a paycheck?

Can't do it. The Act itself does not prohibit it, but that is likely an oversight due to the rushed nature of the legislation. The procedures for taxation and/or repayment of CRD does not provide a mechanism for a Roth conversion with the income included over 3 years. It is very unlikely that they will publish new guidance in the last 45 days to allow for provide for ratable inclusion in income for Roth conversion.

Correct. We had a long discussion about this a few years ago, and there were plenty of folks on both sides. To make it even more fun, there is support for both arguments in the Code. I posed a question with a similar fact pattern to ASPPA annual's "ask the experts" panel a few years ago (knowing that two of the people on the panel had different opinions), and in the end the answer was that absent specific guidance, either one could be a reasonable approach if you stay consistent.

Great!

Your "solo 401k" is a just a 401k plan without employees, and your "regular 401k", is just a 401k plan without employees. They both file the same 5500-EZ, answering the same questions the same way. There may be some differences in the plan document, but none that would prevent you from adding the same "new" features to the Vanguard plan. Based on what you describe above, a new plan was not required. It is possible that your TPA will only work with their own products, but hopefully it wasn't sold to you as something you were required to do to get this type of a set up (especially when you describe features you don't even know if you will use), and hopefully they did not charge you for things you did not need. I'm not saying the TPA did anything wrong, there are lots of details we are not aware of, but something feels off to me.

Agree with @Bird

Oh I agree with you, just saying that is the argument some will make.

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.