RatherBeGolfing

Agree 100%! Their service rocks!

Kind of... If your document says 3% nonelective, that contribution is required whether you provided a safe harbor notice or not. The notice requirement was removed as a consequence of adding retroactive safe harbor nonelective election. It wouldn't make sense to require a notice if you intend to be safe harbor when the new year starts but waive the notice requirement for the plan that is ADP/ACP tested and elects to be safe harbor on September 1. If you truly want the nonelective contribution to be "optional", you would need to amend to ADP/ACP tested prior to first day of the plan year, amend to be safe harbor mid year if you opt in, and then amend to ADP/ACP tested prior to the next plan year in order to have the same choice in the following year. Ive decided it takes about the same time and effort for me to track the different safe harbors to figure out which one HAS to have a notice, Im just going to continue with a notice for all my SH plans.

I have seen this language in TPA contracts before (with some variations on the exact language). A more common wording would be something like "shall be paid by the plan to the extent it is not paid by the employer." I agree with Peter's comments above, there are MANY considerations from as contract drafting standpoint that become crucial. "May deduct" probably does not mean that the TPA can just take it from the plan, it just creates a contractual obligation. I think the cases where the TPA has the power to direct an unrelated RK to make a payment are very rare. To me, the more troubling part is who makes the determination that the expenses are reasonable and necessary? That is a fiduciary act, so if the TPA truly has the authority to collect payment unilaterally, I don't see any way it is NOT a fiduciary. Also, keep in mind that these things sometimes come down a poorly drafted service agreement. I have seen some that are clearly copy/paste jobs by people who do not understand the language, or even worse, attorneys who don't understand the players involved (and their functions/duties) and simply use "A shall be paid from C in the event of non payment from B".

The requirement to file the return is still there after you miss the due date, so I guess any late return filed after 12/31/19 was required to be filed after 12/31/19

If you pay the user fee and file as indicated for the program, you have corrected the failure caused by not filing a timely return. No additional penalties for filing late.

I wish I could "like" this twice. I refuse to make the client's problem my problem just because their team of attorneys didn't do their due diligence.

I'm going to cite this in my next footnote...

Assuming $42,000 is rolled over, leaving him with $8,000 distributed for 2020: He can include $8,000 in income for 2020, or include $2,667 in 2020, $2,667 in 2021, and $2,666 in 2022. He can avoid income inclusion by repaying the $8,000, but if the repayment is done after any amount has been included in income, he will need to file an amended return

It really isn't a problem at all for me. Most clients like the reassurance that they can reach me after hours if needed, but very few actually use it unless it is truly an emergency. Keep in mind that I am not saying that other should do this, just that it works for me in my situation. It depends on how your business is structured, what your responsibilities are, and the type of clients you have. I am fortunate enough to be able to say that we pick our clients as much as the clients pick us. To use a @Larry Starr-ism, we are not a TPA. We are the retirement plan consulting department of a larger consulting firm. There are clients who are retirement plan clients only, an there are clients who have multiple engagements with our firm. Many of these clients want more than a provider to perform a task, they want a trusted adviser to help them with many parts of their business. I also travel and do more problem solving / "firefighting" and business development than I do day to day admin, so being reachable outside of banking hours comes with the job. Maybe its just me, but I have never looked at it this way (doesn't mean it is wrong for others though). In my opinion, when you treat something as "just a job", that means you are replaceable at a moments notice with someone else to just do the job. When you have clients who have been with you for 20-30 years, that call 5 years ago could absolutely matter.

At this point, a blanket delay is not likely.

It does. Section 4F

Mostly noise. Copy/Paste of my answer from a similar question earlier today Short answer: No, Im not concerned. The same question was asked when payroll providers started using admin (if you can even call it that) as a loss leader to capture the payroll service The same question was asked before and after the DOL slammed the door on the fingers of the Open MEP providers The same question was asked when some bigger national players started gobbling up every mid size service provider they get their hands on These services will be a good fit to some plans, but nowhere near a majority. My clients are with me because of the service I provide, not because I'm $10 cheaper than the other cookie cutter providers. If a client is only looking at cost, they wouldn't sign with me in the first place. We are not the most expensive, but we aren't on the low end either. One of the biggest complaints I hear from people coming from the big national TPAs or payroll providers is that the service aspect just was not there. It was hard to get a call back, their rep kept changing, they were not flexible enough, "we dont do that" was a common answer, and so on. That is not how we work. Most of my clients have my cell phone number, but very few "abuse it". My clients know that if there is an issue that needs solving it will get solved. They want and expect a premium service, and for that they need a premium service provider. If you are a small shop that does mostly very simple admin, that may be different.

That is correct. Payments made after the 2020 tax return due date (As extended), cannot reduce the distribution amount included in income for 2020 until you have reduced the 2021 amount to be included in income. Excess recontributions for a given year can be carried back to a prior year or forward to a subsequent year.

Short answer: No, Im not concerned. The same question was asked when payroll providers started using admin (if you can even call it that) as a loss leader to capture the payroll service The same question was asked before and after the DOL slammed the door on the fingers of the Open MEP providers The same question was asked when some bigger national players started gobbling up every mid size service provider they get their hands on These services will be a good fit to some plans, but nowhere near a majority. My clients are with me because of the service I provide, not because I'm $10 cheaper than the other cookie cutter providers. If a client is only looking at cost, they wouldn't sign with me in the first place. We are not the most expensive, but we aren't on the low end either. One of the biggest complaints I hear from people coming from the big national TPAs or payroll providers is that the service aspect just was not there. It was hard to get a call back, their rep kept changing, they were not flexible enough, "we dont do that" was a common answer, and so on. That is not how we work. Most of my clients have my cell phone number, but very few "abuse it". My clients know that if there is an issue that needs solving it will get solved. They want and expect a premium service, and for that they need a premium service provider. If you are a small shop that does mostly very simple admin, that may be different.

Since the tax industry (and others) have spent lots of time and money defending the position that checklist document preparation is NOT the practice of law (therefore not prohibited as unauthorized practice of law) I would stay far away from implying that anything you do is "legal work" unless part of what you do is authorized practice of law. There are still plenty of ABA members who would love to cut out part of what we do as TPAs and CPAs. I like consulting. If they need more descriptors, consulting-compliance-admin.

It was part of the 2016 proposed 5500 changes. Counting participants based on account balance rather than just being eligible was a trade off for the increased reporting and data collection on Schedule H. Congress did not appropriate funding to to do anything beyond the proposed changes, and the proposal died on the vine with the change of administrations (as usual). There has been discussion, but since we have several years before the first return is due, it is low on the priority list when compared to Covid, MEP/PEP, etc.

It does address this, but there are some additional requirements. Section 4F. If you make a payment after the 2020 tax return due date, that payment will first have to satisfy the 2021 repayment amount. Any payment in excess of the amount includible in income for 2021 can be applied to 2020 and/or 2022.

Using the PPA language, it should be an EZ. Now we finally have some guidance on it.

The EZ is supposed to be electronic starting with the 2020 PY filing so lets hope the coders are staying busy...

The will if the taxpayer calls, or if you have POA. Its a pain to get through on a good day, and as far as I know they are not processing paper filings at all right now, so if you want to verify a 2019 PY filing you will need to file an SF one participant plan like you suggested.

I would only add that in addition to the amendment, if the sponsor wants to not withhold it would be some version of a partial adopter rather than a non-adopter since it has to be a CRD in order to not withhold. If they are an adopter (partial or otherwise), I think they need to notify the participants of the availability and extent of what they will consider a CRD.

Withholding isnt determined by the document though, it determined by the Code. In order for the plan to treat a distribution as a CRD, it has to amend for CARES. The reason you have voluntary withholding on a CRD is because it is not treated as a rollover eligible distribution. Absent an amendment, the distribution in question (and most other distributions) would be rollover eligible and would require 20% withholding and 402f notice. I don't see any room for maybe here. Whether they would enforce the penalties for failure to provide notice and withholding is a different matter.

Doesn't this mean that if an employer so chooses the plan must be amended at some point? Yes.

All??? That is not the norm for sure. informal surveys and distribution statistics have shown that CRD/CRL adoption have been lower than expected, and leakage has been surprisingly low. Im in Florida. I have clients in the biggest cities of the state and in the most rural areas of the state. We have had a handful of adopters, thats it.

This.