CuseFan

The annuity starting date for a lump sum is the date that all requirements for issuing the payment have been met, including notices, spousal consent and other timing issues. If these were cash outs under the terms of the plan - so if everyone received their 402(f) notice at least 30 days before 12/26, then I think you can have that as an ASD. If administrative delay pushes that into January, I think that's OK. February is questionable. I don't know where in the regs, but it is the definition of annuity starting date that I think you want to reference.

YES! So I've had ERPA for a while, #373, and had successfully renewed twice before w/o any issue. The second time was w/o a PTIN as I let mine lapse when they were no longer required. My latest renewal in 2024 on my 21-23 cycle hit the same problem, all of a sudden they were looking at credits tied to PTINs (which they no longer required!). I too had accumulated a majority of credits through ASPPA and ASEA on-demand webcasts which stated they provided ERPA credit. However, the completion certificates that were issued by the website upon passing the quiz were not sufficient for ERPA documentation. I provided copies of all those non-compliant certificates to ASPPA customer service (I think) requesting the IRS program number. They re-issued ERPA compliant certificates to me for all those 2021-2023 sessions. There was one that they found did not count for ERPA. Certificates were signed by Chris DeGrassi, Chief of Retirement Education - all on 7/18/2024. Whoever told you they were not ERPA eligible probably just didn't want to be bothered. You only mentioned 2021 as an issue? ASPPA gave me 2021-2023, so I don't know how 2021 becomes an issue now. I was told at the time that they were rectifying their website/process to "fix" this deficiency but looking at later 2024 sessions (under someone else's signature) the certificates are the old version. My guess is they figure there aren't enough ERPAs out there and no new ones possible, so why bother with the time and expense for a fix. I think IRS would have accepted non-ERPA certificates and an itemized list of sessions with their IRS program numbers, but ASPPA provided compliant certificates. If you can't get satisfaction from ASPPA for 2021, send me an email with the courses you took in 2021 and if I took any of the same I can give you the IRS program numbers that were on my certificates. Another IRS issue I encountered was that you needed 66 non-ethics credits and they only considered 6 ethics credits at 2 per year - so anything beyond that didn't count and was wasted credit, even though neither Circular 230 nor the 8554-EP form or instructions stated such. Since I had 72 with 7 or 8 ethics credits I had to take a course in 2024 to fulfill my 21-23 renewal requirement. After all that, and being told I was renewed (which I've kept the email as proof), I never received my updated card in the mail, which supposedly they mailed out three times and verified the correct address. The same thing happened for my prior renewal, no card received in the mail, including a supposed second attempt then. I gave up on getting a new card, keep using my ERPA number and haven't had any issues in that regard. My next renewal comes up in 2027 and probably won't even bother. Anyway, the last two issues are just me venting. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks it's a concerted effort to hasten the elimination of the ERPA designation. Good luck and I'll help you if I can.

Agree. A VCP requirement is that you must completely fix the defect, so submitting only PPA restatement doesn't go the distance.

And that's why retirement plan practitioners avoid consulting on healthcare! Thank you Brian for being the healthcare guru for this forum, when reading a question I can always tell when it will elicit a Brian answer.

Not sure about a PT but certainly an operational defect by not following the terms of the plan and the deferral election.

BPAS has a product as well.

PSP can have in-service. A rollover to a Roth IRA is taxable but there is no 20% tax withholding because the distribution is rolled over. The taxable nature of the distribution should be evidenced by the 1099R that is issued for the distribution.

I think we use PBI as well.

Yes, thank you David, and thank you Lois for pointing that out and making the rest of us feel like rookies!

For solo plan I don't fiduciary issue is concern and would park in cash/money market. Even if plan was participant directed and had fiduciary concerns, I think investing the suspense in a non-volatile fund would be prudent - IMHO.

I seem to recall this being asked (and answered, not by me) before in this forum and thought that SEPs do not count for such purpose as they have no such annual filing requirements regardless of the amount of assets. I suggest searching.

I thought everyone who worked at least 3 years making more than a certain amount had to be covered - not the 410(b) rules. Also, if on the 5305 model cannot have another non-SEP plan, so isn't that also an issue?

Sorry Peter, I didn't even see your response as I just saw and responded to the follow-up quote/question to me or I would have just referenced your more eloquent explanation of the issue. Thank you.

Attorneys, IRS. However, the Windsor same sex spouse application is/was limited to those provisions governed by tax law rather than ERISA. Since nonelecting church plans are not subject to PRSA and QJSA rules, death benefits could be provided solely to opposite sex married couples but would have to recognize a same sex spouse for purposes of applying minimum distribution rules and rollover rules.

You can pick and choose provided the amendment has substance (likely, since all are active employees) and you are not using average benefits to satisfy coverage (likely not a reasonable classification) - but OK if your general test needs to pass with average benefits.

Plan X is not part of the Required Aggregation Group if it is not aggregated with the other plans to satisfy coverage or nondiscrimination. "Required Aggregation Group" means (a) each qualified plan of the Employer in which at least one Key Employee participates or participated at any time during the Plan Year containing the Determination Date or any of the four preceding Plan Years (regardless of whether the Plan has terminated), and (b) any other qualified plan of the Employer which enables a plan described in (a) to meet the requirements of Code sections 401(a)(4) or 410. Note you could permissively aggregate X with the other plans to make the group not top-heavy, if that is a possibility, but then you must satisfy both coverage and nondiscrimination within that group. "Permissive Aggregation Group" means the Required Aggregation Group of plans, plus any other plan or plans of the Employer which, when considered as a group with the Required Aggregation Group, would continue to satisfy the requirements of Code sections 401(a)(4) and 410.

Oh, Lola

I would also caution against repeating this strategy any time within the next few years for the same employer, and make sure the employer is aware of that, as you do not want a pattern of amendments that creates a discretionary arrangement in practice.

Your thoughts are correct and the employer should either stop making contributions until final numbers are provided or live with giving some employees more than they needed to pass testing, it's as simple as that.

Think about union exclusions - employees who go back and forth between union and non-union status become eligible/ineligible employees and into/out of active participation all the time. The difference here as noted above, is that you cannot statutorily exclude from coverage and non-discrimination testing if they have completed age and service eligibility requirements.

Yes, if this was a taxable entity and that limit applied, all employer contributions and all employees eligible for such would be considered for the 25% deduction limit. No, 404 does not apply.

IRC Section 401(a) is the section of the tax code that applies generally to all tax-qualified retirement plans, whether defined benefit pension or defined contribution plans. The answers to your questions are all "it depends" on the type of plan and its particular provisions. Then there are many other code sections that apply to certain types of plans or plan provisions. What you're asking is basically for an introduction to tax-qualified retirement plans course, which is too voluminous for this forum.

Best of luck for the next chapter of your life.

Yes. Since you were >5% owner in 2023, the lookback year for 2024 HCE status, then through ownership attribution your daughter is an HCE for 2024. In 2025, you are still an HCE through attribution from your son but your daughter is no longer considered a >5% owner as there is no sibling attribution nor double attribution (e.g., from son to you and then you to daughter). Assuming your daughter is not an HCE by compensation then she is not an HCE come 2025.

If you amend (if permitted) to provide contributions to terminated participants you should also vest those contributions otherwise they don't count.