RatherBeGolfing

Thanks Peter. Great-West makes sense to me because its based in Canada, so I don't doubt that they would take on a business that is legal in Canada. I think that Empower falls under GWs US subsidiary, but maybe they want to be the first big RK to wade into these waters now that Sessions is no longer AG (since Sessions was seen by many as one of the bigger federal speed bumps).

Really? Is this recent? The reason I ask because a bunch of us (including someone from Colorado :)) discussed this at last years ASPPA Annual. The question was then put to the full panel of "ask the experts", which included Sal, Ilene, and a few others. At that point, none of the major recordkeepers were willing to play along. Ilene also pointed out that it would be hard to find an attorney or TPA to service the plan because any fees collected could be seized by the feds at any point. Just curious if you know of any recent changes.

I think it has a limited application. If you use Dewey, Cheatem & Howe for your plan document needs, do you really need Sue, Grabbit & Runne to audit their work? Do you trust DCH to not make mistakes or to stand by their work if one is made? I think most clients would. There are some clients who wants belts and suspenders, so it might appeal to them.

The way it was explained to me by one of the people involved, it would be a third party "document audit" with some sort of report. In order for it to have value, I would assume that the law firm performing the service would have to stand behind their work. The point of establishing a program would be to streamline the process for efficiency and affordability, rather than just dropping off a box of paperwork at your local benefits attorney and asking them to form an opinion as to qualified status. If the fee is reasonable and the law firm backs up their service, Its probably prudent. As to whether there is real value, I'm not sure. I haven't reviewed any of these services myself, I have only had casual conversation with some people who were working on it.

I second this. I know some of the major ERISA law firms have launched or are in the process of launching services to fill the void.

Is it really that common to for the company to handpick the charity or charities that will qualify for the volunteer PTO? Whenever I talk to someone who works for a company with that kind of policy, they get to pick the charity themselves. If its a lesser known charity or organization they just have to provide some kind of documentation from the charity.

Favorite answer, it depends. What location? An entry level in Alabama will be cheaper than an entry level in Florida, Florida cheaper than California, etc... What functions will the admin perform? entry level vs experienced doesn't necessarily mean as much as what the admin will actually do. Same with number of plans. What does the admin to "per plan"? What kind of plans? Are they all on platforms? Are they All DC plans? How complicated is the plan design? For a decent answer, I think you need to at least narrow it down by region and responsibilities.

There are plenty of ways to do it other than just beginning balance, but pro rata by comp ain't it...

The taxes were paid, so no one really has a claim on additional funds. That said, I think the plan fiduciary and by extension the service provider could still have an IRS problem. The plan is required to withhold and deposit the taxes. This is supposed to be done electronically via EFTPS with the appropriate 1096/1099/945 to report the transactions. Doing estimated tax deposits circumvents the plans reporting requirement. The employee is supposed to be able to take his/her W-2 and 1099-R and report that on his/her tax return. I could see where a less than financially literate employee could screw their tax return up because things weren't done the right way. I also think its a liability to do it this way. It is giving the IRS an excuse to dig deeper for more errors, and even if there are no other errors its a PITA and a waste of time.

Your max at the moment is $39,500

How many times have you done it? I have had clients do this without talking to us first and it has taken many calls to the IRS to fix it. You may be one of the lucky few that didn't have this cause an issue. They normally wont return the check, but most of the time it wont be correctly applied as a 945 to the plan.

Lou is correct. Can't use code 2 now since she is still employed. She needs to wait or take the 10% hit

Like @Bird, we have a master EFTPS account and we do it for our clients. It is just much easier. Otherwise the plan has enroll with a plan account and make deposits electronically. Unless you do a ton of distributions, you are going to have an account with a $0 balance that is probably going to just eat up monthly fees, unless you have a friendly bank that will give you a free account to carry a $0 balance.... I believe the amounts / schedules are less than $50k in lookback period (last year) - Monthly schedule $50k or more in lookback period - semiweekly schedule (Wed-Fri due Wed, Sat-Tue due Fri) $100k or more due the next day, and you are now semiweekly schedule for the rest of the year and next year. I think the $100k accumulates each deposit period, so if you are a monthly schedule and and withhold $50k in the first and third week of a month, your deposit is now due on the next day and you are semiweekly schedule for the rest of the year. But, if you withhold $50k in the first week of two consecutive months, you don't hit $100k for either period so you are still monthly for the year but semiweekly for the next year.

The sample test shouldn't tell you what questions/topics will be on the exam. The purpose of the sample test is to give you an idea of how the test is structured, what kind of questions will be on the exam, and to give you an idea of how to answer the questions and how much time to spend on each question, etc. For what questions/topics will be on the actual test, study the syllabus. Generally, the tests will follow the learning objectives and exam weighting pretty closely. The sample tests should help you with how to read the questions and take the test. - read the question closely and look for qualifiers (always, never, not, etc) - don't just pick the "right" answer, eliminate the wrong answers. The qualifiers will almost always eliminate a few answers for you - If you get stuck on a question, mark it and move along. When you are done, go back to your marked unanswered or toss up questions - Some people like to read the answers before the question, but it doesn't work for everyone. Try it on the practice exams. By knowing your options for answers, you may be able to eliminate one or two options as you read the question.

Happy to help!

Yes and yes

At what point is it appropriate to start this question with "Robert has blurb..."? ?‍♂️ Joking aside, isn't the point of the section you are referring to that if you have a successor plan you no longer have a distributable event due to plan termination? If a successor plan exists, assets with distribution restrictions (elective deferrals and SH) are not distributable due to plan termination if a successor plan exists, while other contributions like profit sharing and non safe harbor match would be distributable even with a successor plan in place. So any participant who does not otherwise have a distributable event, would have to have their restricted contributions transferred to the successor plan or stay in terminated plan until a there is a distributable event. This is assuming you have the successor plan in place at termination. If you distribute all assets and then establish a new plan within the 12 month period following distribution, you have a big problem with the distributions you already did...

Yep, I believe Derrin Watson coined the "maybe not" term in an ASAP or Relius update after they came out.

@Pam Shoup suggestion above is great. It needs to be done by hand rather than typed on a computer. Studies have shown that doing it by hand increases memory retention significantly. When I was in law school I took all my lecture notes by hand and I did my outlines by hand before I put them into a word document. I do the same thing whenever I study for a designation or read a new proposed rule or law change. For actual studying I do something like this Week 1 Read Ch1 (or part 1, section 1, whatever), then outline Ch1 on the second read Week 2 Read Ch2 , then outline Ch2 on the second read, study Ch1-2 outline Week 3 Read Ch3 , then outline Ch3 on the second read, study Ch1-3 outline Do this until you have outlined all of the required material. The outline should mainly focus on the learning objectives from the syllabus unless there are new things there that you also feel are important. Since different sections are weighted more or less on the exam, you can substitute Ch1 above for whatever section is going to be used more on the exam, that way you read that outline each week and should know it well before the exam. There is no point in doing a 5 page outline on plan loans and a 1 page outline on testing if you are going to get one loan question and 10 testing questions...

Do you feel like you know the answers while taking the test? Or does it seem like the exam is nothing like the practice exam? Are there certain sections that are tripping you up? I know they have changed how they do the exams since I took them but they used to tell you if you need to improve on a certain section like distributions or testing or whatever. Overall, the syllabus is your best friend. it tells you what you are expected to know from each section/topic, and what percentage of the exam can be expected from that section.

We don't have enough information to answer this question. A divorce decree can meet the statutory requirements for a QDRO, so a separate QDRO is not required per se. A separate QDRO is much more common though.

No. Its not an issue. It does not favor the HCEs. The only reasonable way to look at this to see if HCEs are favored is looking a deposits YTD A simplified example. 1 HCE and 1 NHCE. NHCE gets funded over 10 payroll dates during the year, HCE gets funded once after the end of the year. Deposit HCE HCE YTD NHCE NHCE YTD 1 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 10.00% 2 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 3 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 30.00% 4 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 40.00% 5 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 50.00% 6 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 60.00% 7 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 70.00% 8 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 80.00% 9 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 90.00% 10 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 100.00% 11 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00%

Yes I would say its a plan amendment , but not an amendment that would put the pre-approved status in question (at least not with our may example above). As such it would need to be adopted by someone with the authority to amend the plan.

Do the two quoted sections above really mean different things? They both say that the plan may distribute immediately if the QDRO provides for it. If it was a requirement, if there was no choice at all, I would expect shall or will rather than may. I agree that it would be problematic for the fiduciary to have discretion on a case by case basis, basically deciding that AP1 gets a distribution now but AP2 does not. Could this not be taken care of with a written plan procedure that dictates whether APs are paid out immediately or not? Such a procedure does not sound inconstant with either quoted section above and the fiduciary would no longer have discretion.

Not in my pre-approved AA, but in the BPD The section dealing with distributions to alternate payees permits earlier distributions but does not require it.