CuseFan

The impetus is on the participant to keep the Plan Administrator informed of whereabouts. DOL "aggression" is targeted at missing participants when benefits become due and payable, basically NRA and/or RBD. If a plan had optional early retirement at age 55, it wouldn't have to find and communicate with all TVPs upon attainment of age 55. I'm sorry I do not have a suggestion for dealing with what has already occurred other than "too bad, so sad, now you know why you should make sure we have your updated address." For future reference I can tell you that our window amendments now always have as an eligibility requirement that a participant must have an updated/correct address on file with the Plan Administrator and the PA is not responsible for missing participants/bad addresses - basically a CYA provision.

Plans can and often do exclude non-resident aliens with no US-source income, and those are permitted statutory exclusions (like union, under age 21, etc.). Plans are not required to do so. Could a plan exclude non-US citizens regardless of resident status and US-source income? Yes, but such would not be statutory and would be included in the denominator for your coverage testing. If this population is small relative to the employer that is not likely to be an issue. If the plan sponsor wanted to include such employee(s) in the plan then that is permissible but then they have to deal with the complexities for distributions if any employee is then out of the country when paid. I do not know the IRA allowances/prohibitions in similar instances.

What about using 83 hours in December 2020 for a special 1/1/2021 entry and then going to 12-month 1,000 hour rule thereafter? That might limit (most of) your early entries to full timers. Or 167 in Nov/Dec? Or 250 in 4Q2020? You get the picture.

You can pay an AP immediately if the terms of the plan allow (e.g., an option in the FTW VSP is ability to QDRO in lump sum in any amount at any time - i.e., no limitations, unless you have 436 or top-25 HCE restrictions). IMHO, if the QDRO says AP gets X% of account balance then AP gets X% regardless of the assets and independent of any benefit/account balance the AP has accrued under the plan as a participant. AP may or may not be able to get this distributed immediately, depending on terms of the plan and funded status. AP as participant cannot get her individual account balance/accrued benefit unless employment terminated or otherwise eligible.

Since first year, is there ability (and support in plan document) to pull out excess employer contribution that is not deductible, either on mistake of fact (insufficient compensation) or on the failed contingency that it is deductible? Not sure if/how this works if tax return has already been filed with the excessive deductions.

You cannot exclude solely based on "scheduled to work...." and must include PT et al if and when any such employee completes 1000 hours in an eligibility computation period.

Similar to an article on Mitt Romney years back, again putting Roth IRAs back in the news and framing (again) as an abusive tax loophole for the rich. If they didn't want rich people to shield billions from taxes via Roth, they should have put an accumulation cap and brought back the excise tax on excess accumulations.

Any solution that utilizes a qualified plan to direct additional amounts into Roth that would otherwise not be available through Roth IRA or 401(k) can be referred to as a "back-door" Roth. However, use of after-tax voluntary contributions typically works in only two situations: owner or HCE only plans where nondiscrimination testing is not needed or very large corporate plans with generous matching contributions that can satisfy ACP testing.

and if no filings are made, what are the ramifications? the plan sponsor no longer exists so there is no responsible party to go after. not filings 5500's does not DQ the plan and taint the distribution paid to last man standing. I would just walk away and let it go.

So first, I would not use "eligible" in any of the above descriptions because you're excluding these employees from being classified as eligible employees. All are permissible classifications but the second two need some clarification - the $75,000 needs a defined time frame (look-back year?) and further defined - is it $75,000 in compensation, and is it gross, plan, commission income or base pay? Why are you concerned with BRF? You need to satisfy coverage for whatever plans/portions of plans you want this exclusion, and if you can satisfy coverage for that then BRF won't be a problem.

Coverage & Nondiscrimination Test. I interpret consistency from year to year as all years in general but don't know if you must lock it in forever. If you changed methodology to B after using A for say 5 years and then continued with B for a number of years, that might be OK. I don't know how IRS would even monitor as I don't recall them ever asking for the NDT over multiple years. Consistency among all participants and all aggregated plans is required regardless.

From the C&NDT answer book: Apparently either method is valid. It is the position of the IRS that a plan may use attained age (as of last birthday) or age nearest the testing date for purposes of the general test, as long as it is applied in a consistent manner from year to year. If nearest age is used, the equivalent benefit accrual rate (EBAR) for participants born in the first half of the plan year is reduced by one year's worth of interest when compared to using age last.

You are correct - seek and ye shall find!

They can be excluded if they do not benefit by reason of being terminated and having less than 500 hours. If they benefit, or there is not a last day and hours requirement then that exclusion does not apply is my understanding.

Agree with CBZ - reallocate means within the DBP, and you need to first revert to be able to then transfer to a QRP.

CCA also sponsored a webinar in September 2020 on COVID and Retirement Plans. One slide estimated a 25% increase in 2020 mortality (deaths) but then estimated the surviving population would experience 25% lower future mortality as a result of improved health behaviors - survival of the fittest in a sense. However, as we know, this is all unevenly distributed across geography, race, socio-economics and unfortunately with vaccines, politically, so how it truly impacts future mortality for the country and retirement plans in total remains to be seen. Another slide had the following, indicating any COVID impact on lump sum rates would be realized until 2024: Mortality Improvement Scales •MP-2020 scale will include population mortality data through 2018 •COVID experience would first affect scales in 2022 •According to recent process, scales developed in 2022 would affect 417(e) lump sums in 2024 Hope you found this both interesting and helpful.

You could continue looking at hire date anniversaries for the subsequent eligibility computation period, there is no requirement to shift to the plan year.

YES - anything that improves cyber security these days is a positive. The last thing we need is a Russian hacker infiltrating our sacred forum!

Check your plan document as to when specific contributions are allocated to participants to make sure document supports your actions, or at least does not prohibit or contradict them. If it's a matter of cash flow, then using a holding account for PS deposits until year-end might be way to go, but if it's because owners want to invest their PS ASAP then that obviously doesn't work.

Agree with all - if client is unable, unwilling or otherwise problematic in getting you basic required information they should readily have, including census history (at least recent years), the last few valuation reports, and the latest plan document, then I would have little confidence that they'll instantly turn over a new leaf and in the future provide you with everything you need each year on a timely basis. Remember, it's usually 10% of your clients that cause 90% of your problems, so if you can identify and avoid someone likely to be in that 10% (and thereby shrink it), then walking away might be your best course of action unless the size of the engagement is meaningful to your practice.

Definitely not #1. #2 or #3, or combination thereof as the deduction(s) will need to be within the applicable limits for the applicable years. Nor am I, so I also suggest the client discusses with their accountant.

Agree, need to make sure this provision has been adequately communicated.

I have seen many instances over the years where the plan's check writing function passed through the corporate account - not a best practice but in and of itself probably not a compliance problem BUT, maybe an issue if there is any float, especially if checks not cashed timely. If checking account does not pay interest, then I think OK. The important issues are tax withholding and remitting (if/when required) and reporting - running through a corporate account does not change any aspects of those requirements.

Anything you do that increases benefits will have to satisfy nondiscrimination. You don't describe any of the circumstances that we would consider in dealing with this - amount/percentage of over funded status, number and ages of owners, if owner benefits are tracking at 415 limits, the relative number of employees/participants, how mature the plan is and whether the plan is aggregated with a DCP to pass testing or you have combined plan deduction limits that apply. A joint discussion with the plan sponsor and investment advisor is warranted because a 21% return sounds great but at what risk and, if owner benefits are at or near 415, why construct the portfolio in that manner? This is a much different discussion if you have a $10M plan that just created $1.5M in excess versus a $1M plan that created $150,000 in excess. Again, depending on particular circumstances, we usually recommend a number of alternatives, sometimes individually and sometimes in combination, including reducing future contributions, amending to increase benefits (usually a one-time balance increase, and possibly reducing contribution to CBP to offset additional PS contributions that are often needed to satisfy testing), paying eligible plan expenses from plan assets, and retaining a cushion for various reasons such as the 110% threshold to pay HCE lump sums or protecting against a down year in the business or the market (although ROR ICR does that for most part). This is a good problem to have but the key is to not let the over funded position get out of control - but what constitutes out of control depends on the particulars surrounding the plan. Good luck.

No doubt, and these departments always seem to be understaffed - so my derision is cast not at the people, but at the institution, LOL! But where a well-staffed IRS might mean quicker turnaround on VCP and d-letter submissions, it could also mean an uptick in audit activity, so I'm OK with them running on a skeleton crew!