RatherBeGolfing

AICPA is expecting a relief announcement this week, and from what I understand the IRS has indicated that they will be lenient with "for cause" penalty forgiveness in areas with no formal relief. I know we have requested relief on the retirement side as well, but I'm not sure if they will address general tax relief and pension relief at the the same time.

I think we are dealing with two separate issues. 1) Can you do it (does the document allow for it) and 2) Should you do it Issue 1 is appropriate for you to answer as a non-fiduciary, I do not think issue 2 is. You can (and probably should) tell them about the availability and suggest that they review, and seek outside counsel if necessary, but I wouldn't go as far as recommending it.

Just curious, are you a fiduciary to the plan?

There is also a fourth way, known as the Larry way ? @Larry Starr

AICPA is expecting relief announcement from IRS this week. I'm not sure if we will get plan related relief as well or if that will come later

That first year had major issues with transmitting returns from provider software, but it has pretty much problem free since then. We went the third way which was for the TPA to file on behalf of the client. 1. TPA prepares 5500 2. TPA gets signed 5500 from client with an authorization to file on the clients behalf 3. TPA electronically files the return using their EFAST transmitter credentials 4. Done

I haven't heard anything that points to a 3 year limit, just that it can go back as pre-tax in the year of distribution or after-tax for subsequent years.

Yes, it is in the works but too early to say what will come of it.

One distribution, two transactions. One fee. I understand MTC reasoning, they are separate accounts. The platform charging two fees would bug me too, and I would fight it just to be a PITA if I'm the participant.

Nothing in SECURE would limit it to active employees. It all depends on how the document has been amended to allow for this provision.

I think it assumes more than $1,000 as an account balance but with a $1,000 request. Which I would agree with.

Other than what is necessary? Id say none. What type of unwanted services are you referring to?

As long as it is paid from the participants plan account, it would be $900 distribution and $100 fee/expense.

I have seen it happen both with major gains and major losses, but you make a good point. They are more common with losses, but still pretty rare (from what I have seen). Most of the special valuations I have done, have had more than one factor. For example, a major loss combined with an HCE requesting a very large in-service distribution, or a distribution of a large part of the pooled account, etc.

Thanks Liz!

Neither... deadline is 15th ?

I agree with Larry. You are not required to include earnings under the final regs. It is possible that a document provider decided to not offer that flexibility and instead defaulted to eanrings are included. From the final regs, under the heading "Summary of Comments and Explanation of Provisions"

In states where they are not invalid as a matter of law, you would technically be correct. It would certainly depend on the jurisdiction, but between notice of assignment, revocation of assignment, and seeking a court order for garnishment, I wonder whether there is enough time to cure the default. My point is I think you would actually expose the plan to more liability with the various state laws governing (and prohibiting) wage assignment.

What are they waiting on? for the market to recover? They cant delay a distribution in hopes that the investments will increase in value before they distribute. They probably (depending on the document) could do a special valuation to take the losses into consideration, but it may be a little late for that.

From the title, I assume you are using FTW for admin/compliance. If the prior year dates are already in the FTW system, do not include them on this year's census when you scrub.

And it can be revoked, just like withholding. The available remedy if revoked is wage garnishment through court order. Why would the plan want to go to court to collect on a participant loan?

Correct, but they still have to amend the plan document if the want to change from year to year. How are you operating according to the terms of the plan if it says match and you do a non elective, or vice versa?

It's a little unclear from the post, but did you ever amend from SHM to SHNE for the 2019 plan year? The way it reads, you just did a SHNE notice for 2019 and kept it as SHM in the document. And now you are asking whether you need to amend from SHM to SHNE, for 2020?

Pushed back for sure. 1/31/23 is the tentative deadline for restatements, but I do not believe that means the window will open 2/1/21. Last I heard, letters were still expected sometime this year, most likely summer to late summer.

I have seen both, it really depends on the situation and the platform. Yes, that is the correct way to handle it. Are they, or will they be, beyond the 15th of the month following before it can be deposited? I think this is one of those situations where you could argue that you were still timely before the 15th of the month following, but I would still prefer to segregate assets into a plan account.