acm_acm

Take a look at ERISA section 510. I think that would apply here.

I used to live in PA and have posited* that a lump sum shouldn't be taxable in PA, except for the amounts in excess of the contributions made becaue they were previously taxed. I seriously doubt many people know this and/or have the records to establish the "cost basis". * Most colleagues disagreed, but I think I am right on this.

Not sure of the impact here, but remember that 5th anniversary of participation does not mean 5 years of participation. They could be different if there is an hours requirement for a year of participation. Said another way, once some becomes a participant in a plan, their NRA is supposed to be known and should not change based on hours worked after that time.

If one is saying that LTPTers would come in based on 500 hours, even if their class (drivers, sales, division, etc.) is otherwise excluded, then all of the FTers in that class would have to come in for deferrals as well. I would think if a group is excluded (not just based on hours) then the LTPTers in that would be excluded no matter what their hours are.

Agree. I think it's true because death benefits don't vest. Anything beyond the QJSA can be taken away.

Plus, there have likely been contributions made since the separation/divorce date. Those would need to be backed out, no?

Are you sure the person terminated? PRN is hospital/medical-speak for "as needed". An employee marked as such works less than parttime but hasn't been terminated, although they could have 0 hours for a year, I guess. Would that be a termination for plan purposes? It's not clear to me.

Red flag number 2.

If it were my HSA, I would file/amend my 2022 taxes with the deduction for 2022 and treat the "2023" instruction as a scrivener's error.

Ask the service provider if they are willing to become a fiduciary to the plan for such a decision.

People, including many politicians, are conflating a default due to hit the debt limit versus a government shutdown due to a delay in passing a budget. We've dealt with the latter before and it does cause some problems. If the former occurs, not getting IRS/DOL guidance will the least of our problems.

Euphemism of the year.

Fred Reish to the rescue: The SECURE Act 2.0: The Most Impactful Provisions (#4–Optional Treatment of Employer Contributions as Roth Contributions) - Fred Reish

To keep things on an equal footing I would expect the employer takes a deduction for the Roth contribution and the employee would be taxed on the amount of the contribution as if they had been paid that amount. It should be the same as if the employee gets paid by the employer and then the employee made their own Roth contribution.

Maybe someone should spend a buck for a copier/scanner.

One more thing...it's an amicable divorce...for now.

$3???

You still have the problem just with lower stakes, except in the case cited where the entire beneficiary designation was thrown out. I.e., with two decimal places allowed for the percentage, you're still a stuck with three 33.33% designations (risking invalidation) or somebody gets 33.34%.

Regardless of what the plan document says, why would one *not* go ahead and submit new paperwork???

I'm not sure why one would find this surprising or an issue.

Is there any downside to getting a TIN? If no, then why not get one always?

The co-fiduciary issue is what I thought of immediately when the original poster said their company was a fiduciary for the investment advice. It seems like the fiduciary investment advisor knowing about potential issue with another fiduciary means something needs to happen. So following their own counsel's advice would be the first place to start.

A plan sponsor/TPA denied my wife's claim of 100% vesting b/c she left with fewer years of service than were required under the vesting schedule. We pointed out that she had already attained age 55, the defined NRA at the time she left. They had changed the NRA to age 65 since she left and applied the new NRA without looking back, so yes, TPAs and plan sponsors will screw this up even if applied only to new entrants.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Why would a plan sponsor want to go through this hassle? It's DC plan, not a DB plan. The participants have their money from B's plan. They will get new money in A's plan. They aren't losing anything. Why muck things up?

From above: "Client is anxious as this is for 2021."