RatherBeGolfing

It is a safe harbor for electronic disclosures. The whole point of the safe harbor is that electronic communication is the default because of the advantages of electronic communication (accessibility, reducing postage fees, click a link in an email for a document, etc.) There is little value to the participant to get a form letter sent via snailmail every time the RK or TPA uploads a new document. Why not? It is actually not that complicated. The DOL wants communication to be as clear and simple as possible for the participant. We have bugged them for a long time about electronic disclosures as the default (opt-out). The DOL has always expressed concern over access, and has been hesitant to give us an opt-out as default because it could make it more difficult for some participants with limited access or limited computer/internet literacy (AARP's argument against the rule). They don't want you to default to electronic means for communication/disclosure if you don't have an electronic address (email or smartphone number) that you can send to and monitor. You can always use a different method, it just won't be safe harbor.

Yes and no. You cant just say "log on and read". The rule has requirements for how the notice and access has to work. It needs to be very simple, so more like "go to austin3515.com/disclosures/anotherdisclosureyouwontread.pdf" . The document or link also has to be labeled a certain way. Current terminates would need the initial paper disclosure, and you would need to know a good email for them now in order to send the notice of availability. Future terminates, you could make it part of the termination process to deliver the initial notice get a good private email and phone number for future notices. Many small employers may not be able to do a website for disclosures, but could comply with the new email requirements. Once we iron out the wrinkles I think this will be very helpful.

Quick summary of "old" v. "new" safe harbor for electronic disclosure. Both safe harbors are available, new did not replace old. Old safe harbor Opt-in. P or B has to affirmatively consent and demonstrate ability to access information electronically. P is "wired at work". Ability to access electronic information at work (such as email), and use of electronic information must be an integral part of employees duties. Simply providing a company email is NOT enough. New safe harbor Opt-out. Electronic is default unless you specifically asks for paper. Documents are published to a website (or other electronic variations such as an app) and the individual is notified electronically (email, text, or other means) of availability. (proposed rule only said website) Direct delivery via e-mail as an alternative to publishing to a website. The requirements for this option are essentially the same as publishing to a website, except for the combined notice of availability, nut several documents can be delivered with one email. (Proposed rule only allowed for website publishing) An initial paper notice that all further notices will be electronic is required. Company email IS enough P or B can opt out and receive all paper documents (proposed rule had ability to elect document by document) Documents that meet a certain criteria can get a combined annual notice of availability, rather than a separate notice for each document. (proposed rule had an itemized list of documents) Final rule does supersede interim interpretive guidance, FAB 2006-03, FAB 2008-03 (Q&A 7), and Technical Release 2011-03R (Dec. 8, 2011) (TR 2011-03R). Transition period of 18 months. (proposed rule did not have a transition period) Rule is effective 60 days after publication in the federal register, but DOL announced a non-enforcement policy from publication to effective date. (Proposed rule had an effective date of first day of first calendar year following publication of final rule) There is a lot of detail left out of this summary, but as you can see it is very different from the old safe harbor. I would keep my eyes open for a ASPPA asap....

The additional safe harbor is very different from the old safe harbor. It doesn't substantially change the old safe harbor because the purpose of the rule is to add an additional safe harbor, not change the old one. The proposed rule dropped during last year's ASPPA Annual, and the DOL gave us just about every change we asked for in the final rule. I have meetings all morning, but I'll post a longer summary of the new rule later on unless someone beats me to it. The final rule will be published in tomorrow's federal register. The formatting of unpublished rules make them seem much longer, it will be much shorter than 150 pages tomorrow. the actual rule will probably be a page or so, but there is some good information in the commentary as well.

If its a question of "I have no other qualifying expenses left", I agree. The only drawback in that case is cashflow. If its a decision between funding contributions not specifically related to the 56 day period and another expense that qualifies for forgiveness, it is a very different situation. This should be a last resort, not a decision between expense A and Expense B. The vast majority of practitioners should refer this to the client's tax advisor, and should not be handing out advice on PPP loans. This is especially true if you are picking up your own knowledge on the subject from other people's abstracts, even when authored the legendary panda himself

Final Rule released this morning, and is scheduled to be published on 5/27/20 Happy reading!2020-10951.pdf

Ive seen opinions both ways. Im not sold on the suspense account solution, at least not to the point of suggesting or mentioning it to clients. Considering the implications if forgiveness is denied, I'm not going there.

Late to the party, but Florida law recognizes online notaries as of 1/1/2020. To do it, you need to be a currently active notary public, complete and receive certification for a new online education training, and register as an online notary public. https://dos.myflorida.com/sunbiz/other-services/notaries/remote-online-notary-public/

Agreed. Not sure whether the house bill or senate bill are more likely to pass at this point though.

S.3612 Small Business Expense Protection Act of 2020 is the Senate bill that drafted to make "fix" the IRS position.

Are you talking about 404a-5 disclosures? I may need more coffee, but it sounds like you are talking about participant disclosures rather than covered service provider - plan sponsor disclosures. The 408b-2 disclosure should discuss the CSPs services, compensation and fiduciary status. If nothing changes, there is really no requirement for a new notice. Many smaller firms combine their service agreement and 408b-2 disclosure, which could be evergreen or annual. 404a-5 disclosures should disclose participant level fees and compensation formula on an annual basis. Quarterly statements with some information is also provided, which must include actual fees deducted from a participant account in the prior quarter.

LOL yea I had a pretty good idea based on the description....

Slightly off topic, but we had a prior discussion on the certification of necessity. Two additional questions were added (5/13/20) to the Treasury FAQ on PPP. PPP loans under 2 million will be deemed to have made the required certification concerning the necessity of the loan request in good faith.

Correct. And the relevant language in Notice 2018-58 can be found in Section 8.1 (page 40)

I had a conversion with one of the auditors from a very big plan audit firm earlier this. He recalled that AICPA stopped short of actually saying that it violated its independence standards due to some heavy lobbying from at least one firm with plenty of influence. Not sure how accurate that is though.

2020-23 postpones certain due dates, including loan payments, but my understanding is that it is up to the plan whether to extend it to the participants. Loan payments otherwise due between April 1 and July 14 are now due July 15, all of them. Interest accrues, no extension of amortization period, and no automatic reamortization. Assuming the plan uses the maximum cure period, 12/31/20 would be the date in order to avoid default.

Agreed. We will absolutely get more guidance. It isn't just mom n pop stores struggling to figure out what will count towards forgiveness etc, the biggest CPA firms in country are waiting on guidance as well since there are too many unanswered questions.

Well they can, they would be paying people to stay home, or using funds that will be (or at this point should be) forgiven to offset employee cost while the business is not making a profit. It isn't the best use of the money from a business owner perspective though.

In this example, the $100k is a corporate asset until contributed as $105k right?

At the time, I think there was also immense pressure on providers to offer a way to utilize the relief in CARES.

The funny thing is that incorrect usage of certain words or phrases can become so common that they are accepted as alternative. I don't know how common it is for schools to offer formal logic anymore, but it was one of the best courses I took as an undergrad.

just a guess on my part, but the lower you get in cost/fees, you are also likely to get less flexibility for something like this.

FYI The "return" date has been extended to 5/14. Also hearing that banks are contacting loan recipients of less than $2,000,000, asking them if they are completely sure that they need the loan, which is adding fuel to the fire.

Yea I know what you are referring to, but I dont know if denying an employee certification and refusing to qualify a DRO are really comparable. I see where you are coming from though

Point taken.