RatherBeGolfing

I know I guy who works on PR plans, but he is a DB guy so not sure if he does PR DC work. At least I assume its a DC plan since this is under 401k plans... I'll reach out and see if I can get an answer.

Agreed, I think it matters for people well outside of the 1%. Top 10-20% sounds about right.

Even without submitting for a det letter on termination, I dont see the IRS going after a plan with a good faith amendment to include provisions of SECURE that had no actual impact on the plan or the benefits paid. Of course I probably just jinxed everyone here...

Hi Bethany, this is going to be the answer in most if not all states. Outside counsel pointed to California law because it was a California employee. We have had this discussion many times on here, and I dont think anyone has ever provided an example of state law that WOULD permit it.

This would make some attorney out there VERY happy.

With the 10 year payout requirement for non-designated beneficiaries, what are your thoughts on using a charitable remainder trust to facilitate a lifetime (or 20 year) income stream? Obviously, it does not have all the advantages of the stretch, but it does provide for tax deferred growth and income stream beyond the 10 years. Thoughts?

I'm not 100% sure. Safe harbor changes in Section 103 maybe? I know FT Williams will be coming out with a "termination amendment" fairly soon (a few months), and it sounds like FIS is doing the same.

Derrin was talking about the deadline to amend plans for changes made by SECURE being the last day of the plan year beginning on or after 1/1/22, but if you terminate the plan before that, the deadline to adopt any required amendments would be the termination date.

I just had this conversation with a doctor who was upset that she couldn't do this in the practice she just joined. The numbers don't work at all for them. "well my brother works for Facebook and they can do it, do we just have to get a plan from the same place they do and then I can do it?" ?

The ability to pay it back is pretty significant. Not only are you allowing assets to leave the plan, you are also allowing them to flow back in, either as pre-tax or post-tax dollars .

Marking the 5500 as filing under "special extension" is the only thing I can think of that would not trigger IRS love letters... We have plenty of time for guidance though.

Obviously I agree with Larry that guidance is needed, but if you are desperate to implement it now, you should be ok as long as you can show that the steps you took were in good faith. I would probably go with requiring documentation during the good faith period and then possibly changing it after guidance comes out if it is more lenient. I think the repayment is the trickier part, the limits and events are fairly straight forward, and even where there is a question you can argue reasonable interpretation while we wait for guidance.

What area are you in? You can probably find someone who will do it over phone and email, but if you prefer face to face contact the people here may be able to recommend or at least provide you with local firms to contact.

Yes. Its one of the issues that has been identified as needing further guidance.

Since they are your document provider, I would ask again, and request it in writing, backed up by some kind of authority. I would also make sure that this comes from the people who actually draft their documents. This isn't the type of explanation you should get from customer service.

Which isn't a legal opinion (at least very unlikely), and I would be very careful about making operations decisions based on that. Did cite any type of authority for it, or did they just say "Joe TPA did not mess up"? That is not an uncommon feature, I know Relius/FIS has or had it as well. FTW does not, but I believe that is intentional to avoid mistakes. For balance forward plans, you would typically "exclude" a participant from earnings because otherwise the software would allocate earnings based on beginning year balance and you would end up with an ending balance of just earnings.

@ldr maybe I missed it somewhere, but is there a reason you are searching on ancestry rather than contracting with someone like Penchex or MT (or others, not pitching a specific company here) to do a records search for participants or beneficiaries? So in other words, a typical balance forward valuation. Your account balance as of the last valuation date. I'm scratching my head how you (not OP) interpret "preceding valuation date" to mean the valuation date preceding the distributable event rather than the valuation date preceding the distribution. How about Rev Rule 80-155? Emphasis mine I disagree, but maybe at some point you have done all you can. absolutely. And it scares me to think of how far reaching the problems might be if people have not been credited with earnings for 25 years. I would not want to rely on a conversation with a document specialist. Rev Rul 80-155.pdf

Fair enough. A better way to ask the question might be whether the client would object to any fee being charged, which is what it sounds like.

We rarely charge unless we need to go into the paper archives for stuff, but this sounds like the type of PITA client I would charge unless I have a good working relationship with the new TPA. How much is the old TPA asking for?

It depends on the situation, but they are probably within their rights to require "reasonable compensation" if they have to reproduce a product they already delivered.

Agreed. The only thing that changed were the limits. Those changes are effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2019. Assuming its a calendar year plan and otherwise eligible, limit is $500 in 2019 and $5,000 in 2020. See § 45E

I don't think so, the client fired them mid 2019, so I would assume they DID get the 2019 plan year notice. It is the notice for the current year that wasn't provided since the TPA believed they were fired during the time the notice (and instructions) would have been sent to the client. Notice requirement or not, I agree with you that the IRS probably wouldn't make a big deal out of it though.

Yes. § 45E(c)

Just did! I took me a while to realize that you have to fill out both the post and poll tabs rather just one, but once I realized that it was easy to do and looks great. Thanks Dave

(stealing Belgaraths topic to try out the poll feature )