RatherBeGolfing

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.

Second plan name has double quotation marks ""

Excerpted from https://www.asppa-net.org/news/irs-whistleblower-informs-ara-change-could-doom-voluntary-corrections "Word of the dramatic shift in focus was brought to the attention of the American Retirement Association by an anonymous IRS whistleblower. The existence of the forthcoming shift in procedure was confirmed independently. * * * "Information indicates that in the next couple of weeks procedures in the VCP program will be updated in a manner that will subject substantially more cases to the Examination function within IRS. "Essentially, if information requested by the IRS is not sent in by practitioners within a 21-day window, the case will be automatically referred to Examination. What’s more, if the taxpayer withdraws a VCP case, it will be referred to Examination. "Moreover, if the taxpayer misses the 21-day window and the case is referred to Examination, the taxpayer will not be allowed to re-submit the case for consideration under the VCP. If the taxpayer disagrees with how the compliance failure should be corrected, the case will be referred to Examination." Full text at: https://www.asppa-net.org/news/irs-whistleblower-informs-ara-change-could-doom-voluntary-corrections

Rev. Rul. 2012 –3

Absolutely. Allocating and mailing is not the same thing. I think you are looking at it backwards though. The allocation or investment of the contribution would come after the deposit. If I deposit a contribution today, and the recordkeeper allocates that contribution to 10 participants tomorrow (or 10 investments of the same participant), the deposit date is still today. I think that is clearly distinguishable from when you mail a check, which also gives the employer another day or two with the participant contributions since it will not actually leave the employers assets until cashed. Lets also remember that the due date is not 7 business days. The due date is the earliest date on which such contributions or repayments can reasonably be segregated from the employer’s general assets. The safe harbor simply gives you the benefit of the deposit being deemed to be made on the earliest date on which such contributions or repayments can reasonably be segregated from the employer’s general assets if deposited no later than 7 business days following.

Was it? Clearly you don't meet the general rule of "the earliest date on which such contributions or repayments can reasonably be segregated from the employer’s general assets." If this is a plan with fewer than 100 participants at the beginning of the plan year, the safe harbor would be: So, it is deemed contributed on the earliest date on which such contributions or participant loan repayments can reasonably be segregated from the employer’s general assets if deposited no later than the 7th business day. Does mailed on a the 7th business day mean deposited on the 7th business day? I don't think so. Lets look at the final rule published on 1/14/2010. I think it is pretty clear that deposit means deposit. In your example, the deposit takes place on the 23rd, which is outside of the safe harbor window. Since the employer in your example fails to satisfy the general rule, it is their responsibility to deposit the contributions no later than the 7th business day following. The contributions are late.

Correct. The short answer is that if a DC plan meets certain conditions, it does not have to offer an annuity as the normal form of benefit. In that case, spousal consent is not required for loans or distributions, but it IS required in order to designate someone other than the spouse as the beneficiary. Plans that do not have to be subject to QJSA rules can still be drafted to be subject to them, so the document still rules. I know @Larry Starr is a big fan of drafting his documents using QJSA requirement even if they are not required, but I will let him jump in and explain why if he wants to. Look at 1.401(a)-20 and 401(a)(11) for more technical information

The possibility of a payout in a form other than lump sum was there before SECURE. It just isnt used by very many plans. DC plans will have to provide a lifetime income illustration, they will not have to offer lifetime income as a benefit. The illustration and the benefit are completely separate issues.

I dont believe Sec 109 will upend the DC (or QDRO) landscape. As I understand it, it deals with lifetime income options as an investment, not a benefit. The portability issue has been that if you hold an annuity as an investment you are tied to that record keeper or pay substantial surrender fees. What 109 does is allow you to move that investment if it can no longer be offered by the plan. It does not add an annuity as a benefit, which is what I think your concerns would require.

Is there a specific section of SECURE that you are referring to, or was it meant as a question?