RatherBeGolfing

Enjoy retirement!

Is your concern issuing a 1099 for a non participant? That isn't a problem, you are simply reporting who had income from the plan and how much was taxable.

Does anyone have a simple earned income calculation spreadsheet they would be willing to share? Our old software had a calculator induced but our new one does not. I was going to sit down and create a spreadsheet calculator for it but it struck me that someone here may have a simple one already. Thanks J

That is an interesting point. Is that because its a separate class exemption not necessarily tied to the rule? Are there any other "companions" to the rule that may not be impacted by the delay?

Yes and no. (I think) It would be impossible to comply with the memo and keep the April 10 implementation date. It removes the specific 180 day delay. Unless they have new superpowers at the DOL, they will issue some sort of delay. They have to comply with the Presidents directive AND give us guidance, it aint happening in 60 days...

I'm optimistic. DC is a tricky place. As much as I study procedure and rules for "fun", it is impossible to really figure out unless you work with it on a daily basis. After talking to people who are lot smarter than me, my understanding is that they can't simply say we don't like it and put it on the shelf indefinitely. There are limits to how they can delay it and for how long without going through certain procedures. That would include issuing proposed revisions open for public comment and so on. This is why we had the effective date of 2016 and implementation date of 2017. If it would have had an effective date of April 2017, they could simply put in the recycling bin and move on.

I doubt this is one that will be eliminated. But by all means read whatever into the halt you wish. Delays and revisions happen all the time, so do eliminations. Obama scrapped the fiduciary rule the GWB admin had on the table and waited 7 years to roll out a new one. All I'm saying is it is a delay, not elimination. They can't eliminate it right away even if they wanted to since the DOL made the rule effective last year (gee I wonder why they did that) with an implementation date for this year. That means they will need to jump through hoops to kill it and I don't see them doing it. Revisions, yes, elimination no. I know as much as anyone else so I could be wrong. For the record, I'm in favor of the rule. There are some sections I would tweak and there are certainly sections that even the DOL don't know how to practically enforce (that is why we need guidance), but I think it is a good rule in general. That said, all they have announced is a delay to review, so all the speculation about them killing the rule because of XYZ is premature at best.

A halt to rule is not a big deal in my opinion. It does not mean the rule is gone. It means they are going to review it. We can all speculate on the reasons why it is delayed, but the truth is the Obama DOL didn't give them much of a choice. We were supposed to get several big pieces of guidance on the rule from the DOL prior to the implementation date. We were expecting this guidance in 4 key areas. The DOL delivered last minute (about 3 months later than were were expecting) guidance that covered less than half of what we were promised guidance on. I firmly believe we will have a rule, but it may be tweaked in some areas. In order to implement, we need more guidance, a delay was unavoidable.

K2 I believe the the question had to do with being able to sign for benefits, like waiving something or starting to collect benefits etc. Also worth noting that that at least one panelist (Rob Richter with FIS I believe) disagreed with the IRS panelist and maintained that under Florida law a POA could be narrowly drafted to do just that.

Yep, plenty of those type of TPA's out there. I am the polar opposite, I want every terminated employee out of my plans because I don't want to retain the liability (or client's liability). Every terminee that stays in the plan is one more opportunity to miss a notice, disclosure, have an improper investment alternative, etc. But then again I come from the "how do I have the least exposure" side rather than the "how do I squeeze every last cent out of plan" side. Maybe that is why I drive a Hyundai and not a corvette

The ASPPA Annual IRS Q&A actually had a POA question. They don't publish written answers anymore but I will try to dig up my notes later. The short version (best recollection) was that applicability would be very limited and probably could only apply if the the participant had been declared incompetent.

Expectations are raised for #7,000...

None, for the very reason you listed.

I doubt your document will have something that says make an election here to only allow a percentage of pay. The section you quoted has no impact on your salary deferral form. I see no problem with removing the dollar part from the form all together.

Does the plan require a minimum deferral? Also, why would the AA language regarding minimum deferrals impact whether you can modify your salary deferral election form (unless the AA specifies minimum as $ and %)?

Why is % preferred over $, and why can't the plan be amended? To answer the question, I see nothing wrong with encouraging one over the other as long as the encouraged option does not put the participant in a less favorable position

When you file with an attachment the DOL will not put up the filing until they have verified that the attachment does not contain certain personal information.

Under $2,500 (total for the year) can be filed with the 945. We also use EFTPS system in house. It is free and worth learning even for a small practice with the occasional deposit.

I doubt it will be repealed, but it will probably be delayed and modified. There is nothing earth shattering about that. If memory serves me right, GWB's DOL had a a fiduciary rule all but ready when O's DOL scrapped it and started over. I expect some changes, but this is the way the industry has been trending anyway. There are some sections of the rule that I'm sure some will be thrilled to do away with though.

You are welcome :)

It is not a controlled group. Since Joe is 100% owner of A, we look at Joe's ownership in B. We need 80% common ownership to be a controlled group. We do not. Had we had 80%, we would have moved on to see if we also have 50% identical ownership, but we don't have to take that step.

No worries, it was always beaten into me that that a plan account should have a plan EIN rather that employer EIN (speaking of pooled or SDBAs). You guys solve it by outsourcing the withholding and 1099/945 reporting so it seems that it wouldn't be an issue for you since you clearly separate the employer and the trust that way. I really think it is a non-issue unless they decide to require it on the 5500, or if you do withholding and reporting for the trust (1099/945).

It sounds like it. We do withholding as a batch submitter for our clients (and 1096, 1099, 945) so we need an EIN for anyone not on a platform. For your pooled or SDBA clients, what EIN do you use to establish the trust account? Also curious what you would do for your non-platform plans if the IRS revives their "list the EIN of the trust" question on the 5500,

Nope, we only get them for plans that are not platform, like pooled or SDBA plans. You don't need to "sign" as the employer. you still just get an SS-4 and keep it on file. Then go online and identify yourself as the third party with authorization, answer a few questions, proof read your answers and hit submit. Bada-bing bada-boom, you have the EIN for the trust. I just did one today for a new client.

But is it allowed? I'm sure its a major pain, but if it isn't prohibited I don't see why the payroll company shouldn't correct it. You may have to pay for it if you didn't fill out the correct check boxes but it would solve any plan issues. And if they refuse, get a new payroll company. On second thought, I would probably get a new payroll company either way.