RatherBeGolfing

Thanks Peter!

Even without a shutdown, I dont expect much in the form of rulemaking in the next 12-18 months. The 10-1 rule in a recent executive order means that agencies must repeal 10 existing rules for every new rule. Im not entirely sure what the impact is on sub-regulatory guidance, but Bondi reinstated the prohibition on "improper guidance" from the first Trump administration (which was withdrawn by Garland during the Biden administration). Under the memo, guidance is improper when issued without undergoing the rulemaking process but has a direct effect on the rights and obligations of private parties governed by the agency, or otherwise acts as a substitute for rulemaking.

Hi @Ilene Ferenczy, What is your opinion on the effective date of the safe harbor plan? Some are taking the position that as long as deferrals do not start until the day after the termination of the SIMPLE, the plan itself can be effective 1/1. This way, you don't have a short initial year, and you don't need to prorate any limits other than max deferrals. This wasn't addressed in S2.0 or the guidance, but I think it would violate the exclusive plan rule under 408(p)(2)(D).

Paging @QDROphile... Care to share your thoughts?

Florida Practitioner here. Unfortunately, this is very common. IRS has told me informally to attach the disaster relief announcement as an other attachment, but its still 50/50 on an IRS love letter. I set up template responses each season so that we can reply to them quickly.

We have moved away from restatement fees in favor of a slightly higher annual fee. Clients are happy with it, and on the practice side you end up collecting parts of the fee for clients who leave or term prior to the restatement window. Works for us but YMMV

Agreed. There are some functions on my wish list, but nothing I cant live without. The new single step processing function is really nice.

That's what I have heard from my provider. They are working on the system part now and expect them to be available for restatements late Q2 early Q3. Off the record type conversation though, so who knows.

Schwab has SRT. Id say they are more of a competitor than Congruent/CORE at this point. CORE has some great functioning modules right now (contributions, distributions, etc), but aren't quite there as a total solution yet.

Ive been at firms that use Relius for RK and other software for compliance. No issues there. The devil is in the details though. How many plans do you need to convert if you switch systems? What kind of plans do you work on? What features are you using? And so on... Its a fairly small industry. Software development is expensive and takes time to recoup. When users only have a handful to pick from, are you better off being #4 and spending little on improvements, or spending millions to be #1? Dont get me started on the scarcity of RK software.

If Relius is Windows Vista, Datair is Windows Millennium. It all depends on the features you need though. FT William has fewer features than Relius and Datair but is very streamlined and is web based. ASC has more features than FTW, but is clunky (though less so than Relius and Datair). Just my opinion of course, YMMV.

I'd do a final for 2024 and include the 6 cents as if distributed in 2024. Most likely, the numbers wont change at all since you'll round to whole dollars anyway

I'll take a slightly different approach. DOL can't force you to work on a plan you are no longer engaged to work on. DOL can ask you questions about a prior client and the work you did for them (I'm assuming there is no attorney-client privilege here). It sounds like they are trying to gather as much information as possible to be able to assist the participants in some way. I would meet with them and be as helpful as possible without agreeing to do any additional work. It also wont hurt to contact your friendly neighborhood ERISA attorney.

Read the freaking document

Old but useful thread on 2% Scorp medical premiums. Tl;dr - Its comp for plan purposes unless the plan doc excludes fringe benefits.

https://ferenczylaw.com/the-triple-stack-match-its-not-just-for-pancakes-anymore-autumn-2015/

HA! Better you than me Bill

A long time ago, I had several SDBA only plans with 100+ accounts... I could swim in monthly statements like Scrooge McDuck when I did the year-end work. I don't miss those days. At my current firm we are daily val and only allow SDBAs from our RK platform. All the activity rolls up to our trust statement so it really doesn't matter how many SDBAs are in a plan.

Yes unintended top heavy consequence

RK isn't my department, but this is a conversation we are currently having. 99% sure we will now incorporate an optional affirmative election on the form (paper and electronic). Currently, the election is separate from the permissible distribution. @MoJo care to share what you guys are doing?

Circling back to this. I brought this up in a webinar with Derrin yesterday, and he said no. The withdrawal is separate from the election to defer and can't be conditioned on an affirmative election of 0%. He cited 401(k)(4), benefits cannot be contingent on an election to defer. The more I think about the more sense it makes. The permissible withdrawal is an option for employees who were auto-enrolled, but nowhere does it say that you have to opt out of deferrals to exercise the option. Best practice is to provide the participant requesting the withdrawal with the tools to change their deferral rate, and to explain that they have to make an election to stop or change the deferrals. Otherwise, they get the distribution but the deferrals continue. In theory, you could incorporate an optional affirmative election feature on the permissible withdrawal form or process make it as simple as possible. That might be a possible issue for RK/payroll though.

@Tax Cowboy I think ERISAPedia has a marketing tool for this as well. They data-mine 5500 and give you lots of options. Its been a while since I demo'd it, but it was pretty flexible.

We roll all forceouts. From $7,000 down to any amount that is in excess of distribution fees. I havent had it happen, but in theory that could be $1 after fees.

The benefit is largely to the consumer/participant/beneficiary. Do I have assets in a former employer's plan? This is the first sentence on the DOL's website:

I think it could. How a participant makes an affirmative election should be an administrative procedure that the PS can adopt.