RatherBeGolfing

Agreed. Per 2202(a), a coronavirus-related distribution is any distribution up to $100,000, made from an eligible retirement plan , made on or after January 1, 2020 and before December 31, 2020 to a qualified individual. As long as it meets 2202(a) it should qualify.

To your specific question: No, a plan cannot continue to pay RMDs for 2020, because there are no RMDs for 2020. The CARES Act amends section 401(a)(9) so that it does not apply for 2020. That means that distributions from plans that would have been an RMD but for the CARES Act are rollover eligible. As pointed out by others, there may be other language that forces a participant to take a distribution, but it would not be RMD language per 401(a)(9)

2202(b)(2)(A) if the due date pursuant to subparagraph (B) or (C) of section 72(p)(2) of such Code for any repayment with respect to such loan occurs during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2020, such due date shall be delayed for 1 year 72(p)(2)(B) is the 5 year maximum term, 72(p)(2)(C) is substantially level amortization requirement Id say the actual payment per the amortization schedule would need to be scheduled on or after March 27, 2020

Most of what I have seen, at least before the final language was available, referred to it as a hardship distribution. I don't think so. Since "laid off" is one of the qualifying reasons, I don't see how it could exclude a terminated employee. But if it does, you could roll to an IRA and then take tax favorable distribution right?

its not vague. Individual diagnosed is (I) Spouse diagnosed is (II) (III) is the individual experiences adverse financial consequences as a result of being quarantined, being furloughed or laid off or having work hours reduced due to such virus or disease, being unable to work due to lack of child care due to such virus or disease, closing or reducing hours of a business owned or operated by the individual due to such virus or disease, or other factors as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury (or the Secretary’s delegate). The individual cannot claim hardship due to spouse being quarantined (without a diagnosis), but could claim hardship if individual is quarantined or cant go to work due to lack of child care No, the bill states adverse financial consequences as a result of being quarantined, etc.

It is not a HIPPA issue as the plan administrator. The reason it was written that way is to not require employers to make that determination or hold up the relief. That way, an employer can give the employee the loan or distribution when they ask and not disqualify the plan by doing so. It is not to protect the privacy of an employee.

Thats not the point though. The Cares Act requires that you or your spouse is diagnosed with SARS– CoV–2 or COVID-19, oror that you experience adverse financial consequences due to being unable to work or having reduced hours at work. That is debatable, but really not the point. The individual has to experience adverse financial consequences caused by the virus. The list includes being quarantined, laid off, furloughed, reduced hours, unable top work due to lack of child care, or closing or reducing hours of a business owned or operated by the individual. Many will fit into this category, but not all. As the employer, you are correct. As the plan administrator, you are incorrect. Not really. but they don't want to be part of something fraudulent, or see the all the contributions it has made for its employees get erased without good reason.

2202(a)(4)(B) (B) EMPLOYEE CERTIFICATION.—The administrator of an eligible retirement plan may rely on an employee’s certification that the employee satisfies the conditions of subparagraph (A)(ii) in determining whether any distribution is a coronavirus-related distribution. "may rely on" indicates that the administrator is not required to verify that employee's claims are true. It does not prevent the administrator from requesting something to verify the claim. If the administrator knows that the claims are false, I think you have to deny the claim. You cant rely on someones statement if you know it is false. That said, I tend to agree with Mike that an employer cant know everything about its employees, even the ones they are very close to.

Nothing in 2202(a)(4)(A)(ii) limits it to the plan sponsor. You could have an account balance in a plan from a former employer and still meet the requirements for qualified individual. 2202(a) limits coronavirus-related distributions to any distribution from an eligible retirement plan made on or after January 1, 2020, and before December 31, 2020 to an individual that satisfies the conditions of 2202(a)(4)(A)(ii). 2202(b) limits coronavirus-related loans to any loan to a qualified individual made during the 180- day period beginning on the date of the enactment. (b) only requires that the loan be made after the enactment The employee certification only references the administrator of an eligible retirement plan and an employee.

And 30 minutes is what many would consider a great commute...

TPA is just one of our departments, but we have 150+ that have gone 100% remote with each office location having a few designated people who rotate mail pickup. If you can go remote, you should. Our clients are used to face to face meetings but considering the mess around us, everyone accepts it as the new normal (at least for a while).

SEC. 2203. TEMPORARY WAIVER OF REQUIRED MINIMUM DISTRIBUTION RULES FOR CERTAIN RETIREMENT PLANS AND ACCOUNTS. (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 401(a)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: (I) TEMPORARY WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED DISTRIBUTION.— (i) IN GENERAL.—The requirements of this paragraph shall not apply for calendar year 2020 to— (I) a defined contribution plan which is described in this subsection or in section 403(a) or 403(b), (II) a defined contribution plan which is an eligible deferred compensation plan described in section 457(b) but only if such plan is maintained by an employer described in section 457(e)(1)(A), or (III) an individual retirement plan. (ii) SPECIAL RULE FOR REQUIRED BEGINNING DATES IN 2020.—Clause (i) shall apply to any distribution which is required to be made in calendar year 2020 by reason of— (I) a required beginning date occurring in such calendar year, and (II) such distribution not having been made before January 1, 2020. (iii) SPECIAL RULES REGARDING WAIVER PERIOD.— For purposes of this paragraph— (I) the required beginning date with respect to any individual shall be determined without regard to this subparagraph for purposes of applying this paragraph for calendar years after 2020, and (II) if clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) applies, the 5-year period described in such clause shall be determined without regard to calendar year 2020. (b) ELIGIBLE ROLLOVER DISTRIBUTIONS.—Section 402(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘2009’’ each place it appears in the last sentence and inserting ‘‘2020’’. (c) EFFECTIVE DATES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by this section shall apply for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2019. (2) PROVISIONS RELATING TO PLAN OR CONTRACT AMENDMENTS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—If this paragraph applies to any plan or contract amendment— (i) such plan or contract shall not fail to be treated as being operated in accordance with the terms of the plan during the period described in subparagraph (B)(ii) solely because the plan operates in accordance with this section, and (ii) except as provided by the Secretary of the Treasury (or the Secretary’s delegate), such plan or contract shall not fail to meet the requirements of section 411(d)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and section 204(g) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by reason of such amendment. (B) AMENDMENTS TO WHICH PARAGRAPH APPLIES.— (i) IN GENERAL.—This paragraph shall apply to any amendment to any plan or annuity contract which— (I) is made pursuant to the amendments made by this section, and (II) is made on or before the last day of the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2022. In the case of a governmental plan, subclause (II) shall be applied by substituting ‘‘2024’’ for ‘‘2022’’. (ii) CONDITIONS.—This paragraph shall not apply to any amendment unless during the period beginning on the effective date of the amendment and ending on December 31, 2020, the plan or contract is operated as if such plan or contract amendment were in effect.

Correct

Plenty of lawyers in this field and on this board who specialize in ERISA law. Intellectual curiosity and insisting that many of the attorneys who specialize and practice in this area everyday might be wrong because an "obscure section of ERISA" that you don't know about that may prove you right are not even remotely similar. Your time is indeed wasted here because you refuse to accept where you are wrong and where your knowledge is limited.

I agree that you don't have to include them at all, but Im not sure you can exclude the laid off employees if you do.

I don't think so. 2202(a)(4)(ii)(III) includes an individual who experiences adverse financial consequences as a result of being laid off. To me, the inclusion of "laid off" means that terminated employees are included, at least if the lay off was due to COVID-19.

I think you sort have to follow the breadcrumbs in 2202. ... 2202(a)(6)(B) ...a coronavirus-related distribution shall be treated as meeting the requirements of sections 401(k)(2)(B)(i)... 401(k)(2)(B)(i) includes distributable events like termination, death, and disability. 401(k)(2)(B)(i)(IV) references 401(k)(14), which lists amounts that may be withdrawn for hardship distributions. 401(k)(14)(A)(ii) lists qualified nonelective contributions (as defined in subsection (m)(4)(C)). (m)(4)(C)) Qualified nonelective contributions The term “qualified nonelective contribution” means any employer contribution (other than a matching contribution) with respect to which— (i) the employee may not elect to have the contribution paid to the employee in cash instead of being contributed to the plan, and (ii) the requirements of subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection (k)(2) are met. I think the above gets us our distributable event and profit sharing. Does that make sense? From there we use 2202(a) to determine if we have a qualified individual and a coronavirus-related distribution.

You do not have to satisfy other hardship requirements, just what is in the Act.

We are taking the same position. The waters can be a bit muddy when it comes to laid off or furloughed though.

We used to use Relius and Logmein as well. The problem we had with that was, that an issue with the Relius server or the computer you are logged into would need to be addressed on site. This sometimes caused issues on evenings, weekends, or extended periods of remote work when we didnt have staff in the office. We left over 10 years ago, and I didnt think the on site Relius software would last this long...

There are plenty of intelligent responses, but we dont have all the facts we need for a complete answer. Like most threads, it's a give and take between the OP and the people who respond. Of course. No one is blaming Fidelity. We dont even know that Fidelity had their attorneys involved, it could an administrative mistake. Not really. Like many posts here, the OP doesn't necessarily know what facts to look for or what questions to ask to get those facts. Most of the back and forth in these threads is part of the process to get the facts. This thread has gotten more facts from OP. It has provided OP with direction to get more facts relevant to the situation, like what Fidelity's role was. It has informed OP that the wife needs to submit a claim, and probably needs legal representation from someone who specializes in this part of the law. I'm all for case law, statutes, and regs. But if we don't have the full picture, how can we provide OP sources that are relevant? Your conclusion from Kennedy seems to be that since a divorce decree waiving a benefit does not automatically void a beneficiary designation filed with the plan, a participants subsequent marriage shouldn't automatically void a beneficiary designation either. This is incorrect. The problem is that if the plan is exempt from the QJSA requirements (which OPs fact pattern suggests), the spouse is required to be 100% beneficiary unless he/she waives that benefit. The marriage supercedes the prior beneficiary designation. It is no longer valid. If the plan pays out a benefit based on the beneficiary designation that preceded the marriage, it is NOT acting according to the terms of the plan, which is a crucial element in Kennedy.

I think we all agree that more facts are needed, my point was that we don't have competing provisions or two people with a valid claim. These things happen because: 1) someone screwed up 2) someone lied 3) 1&2 Who screwed up or lied is anyone's guess at this point

This is missing @Bird's point. The present case is not dealing with two competing ERISA provisions, the designation of the son as the beneficiary became invalid when the father remarried.

Agree with ratherbereading, but I would also add that if $2,700 is this big of a concern you should be looking for a different vendor. Relius has a great product, but there are other great products out there for a lower fee. I would consider paying the $2,700 to do what you need to do now, then switching to a different provider at the end of your next contract cycle. The savings in the first year should cover the $2,700 extra you pay to Relius now.

And diagnosis is just one out of four right? There is: Diagnosis Spouse diagnosis Adverse financial consequences as a result of being quarantined, furloughed, laid off, having work hours reduced, being unable to work due to lack of child care due to COVID-19, closing or reducing hours of a business owned or operated by the individual due to COVID-19; or Other factors as determined by the Treasury Secretary I think there is a lot of room under #3 for most people