RatherBeGolfing

12/31

Im not sure you will see anything on the IRS site about the law change since the IRS relief is different from the legislative relief.

Perhaps it is good news that the practitioner did not make an error in making the participant take a taxable distribution from the plan?

Its fine, unless the document states otherwise.

FWIW, I just came from a local "benefits round table" and one of the ERISA attorneys I spoke to said that these are absolutely regional initiatives that are spreading. This would make it even more concerning than rogue auditors since they would be acting on orders from higher ups. One of his examples included refunding not only fees and expenses like MoJo has discussed, but also investment losses. The idea being that the account would not have suffered those losses if distributed timely.

Happy to help :)

Creating small balances can be a pain, no question about it. But it really doesn't change the fact that the forfeiture needs to be used, either for fees or as an allocation. Where it really causes an issue is where you have top heavy plan that relies on the exemption. Having to allocate thousands in top heavy minimums because of a few hundred in forfeiture allocations can really sting...

Yes and no. If the client qualifies for relief, non-safe harbor contributions can be deposited by January 31, 2018. However, the deadline for safe harbor contributions is still 12 months after the end of the plan year, or December 31, 2017 for a calendar year plan. This prior thread has some good answers to your question

You wouldn't have to bill the entire expense in advance. You would just bill enough to use the leftover forfeiture. I still favor a contribution equal to the forfeiture amount, as long as it doesn't cause top heavy issues.

There should be language in the document stating when forfeitures must be used. It will probably state something along the lines of "no later than the year following forfeiture". As discussed above, you can allocate just enough use the rest of the forfeiture, but you can't use a $0 allocation to keep from using the forfeiture. This shouldn't be an issue as long as you are not relying on "safe harbor only" to be exempt from top heavy rules. Another possibility could be to send the client an invoice for next years work now. While not official guidance, the IRS did say at a conference Q&A a few years ago that if invoiced and paid in the year when the forfeiture needs to be used, it could be used to pay for next year's expenses.

The IRS would disagree.

My bad I meant fiduciary not participant, this is 408b2 after all. Check MoJo's detailed answer in this thread He explains it much better than I can recite it from the beach on my day off

Very possible. Of course, simply getting all the information into the disclosure might not be enough if it isn't understandable. I believe MoJo has shared some stories on how in depth the DOL is getting when looking at the disclosures, and looking at whether the participants understand whet the disclosure means rather than just technically correct...

I can't speak to the merits of the designation, but I have had a few run-ins with people holding the designation and they have been nightmares. In those instances, the CDFA wouldn't know a QDRO if it bit them in the ass and they failed to comprehend the difference between Plan Administrator, RK, and TPA. Edit: It is entirely possible I just had the misfortune of dealing with the bad apples, but my limited exposure has been pretty bad.

Yes. No. The instructions say to not include contributions designated for 2016 in column (1), which is the beginning of the year assets. 2016 contributions are included in column 2, which is EOY assets. No. They are included in 7a-c and 8a-c.

Disaster Tax Relief and Airway Extension Act of 2017 (H.R. 3823) ASPPA NET article

Yep for 2018 I agree its a one-participant plan

It did cover an employee in 2017 though, so how would it meet the definition of a "one-participant plan"?

Yep. Our document uses the "any permissible method" catchall for forfeitures.

You report it on the 2017 Form 5500 because it was due in 2017 even though the first distribution year was 2016. As of 12/31/2016, you had not yet failed to timely pay the benefit.

I agree with ESOP that your answer isn't in the regs its in the document. That said, it isn't necessarily 2017 comp, and it isn't necessarily that complicated. If the document allows for post year end comp to be included, it would be 2016 comp. Read your document, it should be very simple to figure out whether it is 2017 comp (most likely) or 2016 comp for plan purposes.

I can't see a reason why the relief in Announcement 2017-13 would NOT apply to Georgia. It wouldn't make sense grant 7508A relief while not granting hardship and loan relief. 2017-13 did refer to Florida counties but also included the following: I would also note that 2017-13 refers to areas identified for individual assistance, because that was how the IRS initially limited the relief in Florida. The subsequent expansion to individual OR public assistance would include all of Georgia just like the 7508A relief.

I have never used Datair, but I made the switch from Relius to FTW a few years ago. I did not find FTW system difficult to learn at all, and their support staff is very helpful. The most time consuming part of the switch was the conversion, but after that I haven't come across an issue I couldn't solve myself or solve with a quick call to support (and they take your calls right away). Do you have any particular concerns?

GA-2017-02 seems to grant relief to all Georgia counties Also, the IRS page dedicated to Irma relief provides: (EDIT: The way the IRS updates information can be a bit confusing. In the early days after Irma, only counties that qualified for individual assistance qualified for IRS relief. This was later expanded to individual OR public assistance, which is a much bigger area.)

The problem is that the IRS is not consistent in how they enforce the CE requirements. Circular 230 § 10.6 (e) (2) (i) states that you need 72 hours including 6 hours of ethics per enrollment cycle 230 § 10.6 (e) (2) (ii) states that you need a minimum of 16 hours of continuing education credit, including two hours of ethics or professional conduct, during each enrollment year of an enrollment cycle. The requirement is clearly there. Whether they follow the rules is a different question. Unless you have it in writing that you can ignore § 10.6 (e) (2) (ii), I would be very careful. What happens if you get another person reviewing your renewal? I know people who have gotten renewals when they had less than 72 hours in a cycle or lacked the ethics credits. They were told to do an additional credit in their next cycle. I also know people who have had to fight tooth and nail to get their renewals because their paperwork never made it to the appropriate office even though they had proof of delivery. Follow Circular 230 and you are always safe. It isn't worth risking a credential that you can no longer test for.