RatherBeGolfing

I think Form 945 is pretty common though. Unless you outsource it of course

Thanks Larry!

Also the ability to repay the distribution. I have heard that it would be added as a new hardship, but I haven't seen anything concrete on that.

Participants. But for plan purposes, participant means anyone eligible to participate, even if they are not making contributions now.

Yes. (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to distributions required to be made after December 31, 2019, with respect to individuals who attain age 70-1/2 after such date.

BILLS-116hr1865enr.pdf Page 623

Turned 70.5 on or before 12/31/2019, 70.5 applies Otherwise, 72 applies

Correct.

CCH Prosystem fx Engagement

I agree with the above. Catch-up is not included for 415 limit, so total contributions (including catch-up) CAN exceed 100% of compensation.

I haven't seen this addressed specifically, but it is a good question. Are they eligible for the current credit limited to $500? If so, they should be eligible for the increased credit as well 45E references 408(p)(2)(C)(i) to define the eligible Employer 45E references 4972(d) to define eligible employer plan

I don't see why not. It should also be pointed out that for Section 112 ,periods beginning before 1/1/2021 are not taken into account, so 2024 will be the first plan year to include one of these participants. I'm optimistic that we can get regulatory guidance in the meantime to deal with audit issue this creates.

From a cutback perspective, there is no protected right to continued participation, only to benefits already accrued. So if you have eligibility that less than the statutory maximum, an amendment could make a current participant ineligible for continued participation until new eligibility is met. Some documents default to grandfathering current participants, others it would depend on the amendment. You would still have to make sure that the amendment itself isn't discriminatory. EOB (Ch 2, Section VI, Part E)

I agree, but we should be able to get that through guidance. Clearly the goal is to provide access, not push plans into audit

There was no stopping open MEPs, but I still don't see the impact being as big as some think it will be. They will work for some ERs, but I don't think you will see a huge rush to MEPs. I'm not sure what the impact of long term part time employees will be. Its 500-999 for 3 consecutive years, still have to meet age requirement. You do not have to include them for nondiscrimination testing or TH. You don't have to match. This won't kick in until plan years beginning after 12/31/2020. Lots of good stuff in here too, like adopting a plan after the close of the year, retroactive safe harbor

Text of the bill for those who want to read https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-116HR1865SA-RCP116-44.PDF SECURE language starts on page 1532 Some highlights with page numbers: Retroactive safe harbor election - Page 1555 Repeal of maximum age for IRA contributions - Page 1563 Requirement to allow long term employees working more than 500 hours to participate - Page 1574 Penalty free withdrawals for child birth or adoption - Page 1578 RMD age increased to 72 - Page 1584 Plan adopted by filing due date treated as adopted as of close of the year - Page 1600 Lifetime income disclosure - Page 1603

Expected to be passed by Friday! https://www.pionline.com/legislation/secure-act-attached-year-end-spending-bill

I think you are missing the points being made here. Everyone here is in agreement that backdating should not take place and should never even have been suggested. What has been pointed out over and over again is that it NOT against "pension law" to to make the plan safe harbor now, nor will it make the plan non-compliant. If your current provider claims it cannot be done, it is either because They don't know what they are doing (not very likely) Their internal operations can't handle it because it is outside of their cookie cutter model. (most likely) I know one big national firm that require January 1 changes to be submitted early November. Not because that is what the law requires, but is the time they need in order for their "amendment teams" to get it done on time. Most folks on this board can get it done, LEGALLY, in one day.

If the ER is flush with cash, a SH contribution shouldn't be an issue. The main reason you use a SH provision is because you cant pass ADP/ACP and/or you have top heavy issues. Not being tied to SH in the future is not going to help you with ADP/ACP/TH.

You cant back date the notice or the plan document, and if that was the suggestion from an attorney, I would suggest finding a new one. Too late for 2020 SH? nope. Facts and circumstances will determine whether less than 30 days was a reasonable notice period.

Same here. My current pre-approved document allows for loan source restrictions, as did my my prior pre-approved document. Both from big vendors that many of the folks on these boards use everyday.

Congrats!

I think we can all guess who it is based on the details above So my previous answer shall henceforth be read as "what that guy said".

Unless the auditor is requesting a "fix", my argument would be to let it stay the way it is. The reasoning being that Prime is not an unreasonable rate, even if the plan normally uses Prime +1. It would be different if there could be a presumption that the rate is unreasonable, like 15% or 1%.

I only do a handful of them, and the ones I do are as favors to a client or contact. There is so little work required on the vast majority of them that I will happily pass on a client who complains about a fee for 30 mins of work. Completing the EZ and sending instructions to the client takes about the same amount of time it takes to explain to the client that they don't have to file because of XYZ. I make it known that if they want me to do the work, they will also file the EZ.