RatherBeGolfing

No, I cant get there based on the Q&A. It just means you cannot accept a statement you know to be false. Actual knowledge to the contrary doesnt imply a duty to confirm. Absence of a notification that an employee has been diagnosed (or spouse or dependent) isnt the same as as actual knowledge that there has not been a diagnosis, nor does it mean that you have to confirm/verify the diagnosis since you haven't been notified. You might want to verify for other reasons, but you are not required to for the distribution.

Those who haven't been following also need to know that this is one way to interpret the statutory language, it is not the only way. If you talk to the folks who work with policy at recordkeepers and industry associations, this is not how most interpret the statutory language. It is also important to point out that for an agency like IRS or DOL, the starting point for developing current guidance is to look at past guidance. Could we get something that is different from past guidance? Of course, but it is probably a good bet that most of it will be substantially similar to past guidance. In that context, even if new guidance said " suspend all loan payments for 12 months", they will probably still allow plans to adopt shorter delays, like they did in 2005-92. So for those who are being notified by the plan or recordkeeper that payments will be delayed until January 2021, they are probably not wrong.

Luke, in your example, I don't think you have to restart on 1/1/2021. Scheduled loan payments would restart on 1/1/2021, but you don't have any payments scheduled for Jan 2021. Your first loan payment of 2021 would be your first delayed loan payment. So lets assume you suspended monthly payments starting with the 3/31/2020 payment. Your first payment would be 3/31/2021. The statute does not say "no loan payments for one year", it says "these loan payments are delayed for a year". Restarting regular scheduled payments as of 1/1/2021, and restarting the delayed payments after one year of suspension, is consistent with the statutory language.

Its been a while since I have done one, but you can do one Form 5330. Use 2020 Form 5330 On description of PT put something like "late deposit of employee contributions - see attached summary. Noe: Value in column (d) is cumulative for 2017-2020" Attach a summary for all years.

IRC 152

I agree. The death of the dependent does not undo the qualifying event, which was diagnosis.

I should clarify by saying that you don't need a specific reason for the loan, but you do need something to make you a qualified individual if you are going to take a CRL. You could take a regular loan, but unless you are a qualified individual you will not get the increased limit or delay of repayment. If the father i a dependent, the "qualifying event" is that the father has been "diagnosed with the virus SARS– CoV–2 or with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID– 19)" under 4(A)(ii)(II). The funeral itself does not make an otherwise non qualified individual a qualified individual.

Agree with RBR, the rules are clear. Funeral doesn't qualify. No "other factors" have been added at this point.

Not finding it, but I'm limited to 2001-2018

Just as an FYI for everyone, your county library probably has JPB available as part of its extended electronic only research library, so a library card will let you read many of the back issues of JPB. I think they are about a year to 18 months behind so you wont be able to read the most current ones but for articles with a few years on them it is awesome. I use it all the time when I want more context on an older rev proc or regulation. For example, if you wanted to read commentary on KETRA/Notice 2005-92, or RMDs under WRERA/Notice 2009-82, you could probably find some good articles.

Lots of 5558s to file. Not that big of a deal for most. Here is the kicker though, IRS issues with Form 5558 is like clockwork, and that is with the normal volume of 5558s filed. Many are never processed, they disappear into the same black hole as lost socks in the dryer. Many are processed for the wrong date, so an extension filed for 10/15/2020 is processed as a 10/15/2019, and the plan sponsor gets an IRS love letter saying you owe $500,000,000,000 because your terrible TPA forgot to file your 5558. These can issues can be dealt with if you have proof of mailing and so on, but it is time consuming and can sour the client/service provider relationship

No... The could adopt 3% SH mid year under SECURE. Too late for SH Match though

I haven't seen anything, but I would probably put Notice 2020-23

NO NO NO NO NO

Basically what he said was that you dont have to add a special provision to waive the 20% withholding, but you have to give a 3405(e)(10) notice that you can elect out of the 10% withholding. Thanks for pointing out the AF webcast. Im sticking to my guns and saying 20% until we get guidance that says otherwise.

I agree. The reasonable assumption seems to be that CARES distributions and repayments will be reported on Form 8915 like prior qualified disaster distributions and repayments. going by the Form 8915 instructions, the 2020 payment (repaid before the due date of the 2020 return) of $75,000 would first reduce the part of the distribution included in income for 2020. The excess would then carry forward to 2021, reducing the 2021 distribution included in income. The remaining excess of $8,334 carries forward to 2022, leaving $25,000 to be included in income for 2022. If we had paid 50,000 after the due date of the 2020 return, it would first reduce the part of the distribution to be included in income for 2021, and the excess could be carried back to 2020 (amended return for 2020), or carried forward to 2022. I don't see any reason for the IRS to reinvent distributions and repayments when all they need to do is modify the instructions to include CARES. From the 2019 Form 8915-B instructions:

I think they were always a better place to apply to be honest. We had a lot of clients get approved through community banks, and the stories I have heard from the big banks have been pretty bad. I think an issue that still remains that most lenders will process current clients first, so if you don't bank at ABC Bank, your chances of getting processed before funds run out are relatively small.

I haven't either, but I know a great ERISA attorney who has, and he didn't see a problem with the facts in my situation. I think the fact that all HCEs are owners make it an easier sell than retroactively reducing non-owner HCEs who presumably have no say in the reduction.

For a prior year?

That's how I see it. The participant could claim it as a CVD but the plan has no obligation to treat it that way. This is how I am treating it, but there is plenty of disagreement here. Some say the plan can, but is not required to, allow a participant to self certify even if the plan does not offer CRDs. Derrin had this in his Q&A earlier this month, and Im hoping he will clarify it during the webcast today. EDIT: Derrin reiterated this position during today's webcast. Link to webcast. They usually have the recording up within a day or two if you were unable to attend

I already have amortization schedules ready using the safe harbor in 2005-92. I know there are people here who vehemently disagree with the application of 2005-92 to CARES, but I think it is a common sense approach absent further guidance. If new guidance says we can delay payments longer, then I have the option of extending the delay or keeping my current January repayment start date.

Can't she do that either way since she terminated? or is there a wait? If former employers plan offers CRDs, the answer is yes. For tax purposes, the answer is yes, regardless of former employers CRD election.

Normally, they just say our system wont do it, get your TPA to give you a new amortization schedule

That is not what the statute says. The statute says that loan payments with due dates during a certain period shall be delayed for 1 year. Again, the statute doesn't say "you will have no payments for one year", it says "these payments are delayed for one year". Lets look at a loan that has a final payment due date on December 31, 2020. The first delayed loan payment is March 31. March 31-December 31 are suspended for 1 year. There is no regular payment to resume on January 1, so the re-amortized loan starts again on March 31, 2021. That is a delay of a year. See above. The recycled language in the statute makes it a matter of interpretation. Most interpretations are staying close to the safe harbor in 2005-92. I know people take issue with that because the suspension period was longer than a year then, and its shorter than a year now, but I see no harm in using the safe harbor until we have further guidance. The payments will resume well after we have guidance, so there is time to fix it. Notice 2005-92 also states that the plan can use a shorter period, so it would reason that you wouldnt have to change at all if you go with a more conservative approach.

We just had a similar discussion last week EDIT: I see you were talking about a prior year issue. I linked to a thread on prospective suspension for HCEs As for prior year, yes I believe it is doable under VCP, but unless you are talking about a decent amount of SH contributions you want to avoid, that may be cost prohibitive.