Larry Starr

And you would finally be right!?

Several things: first, I have said in several threads that the participant certification is going to be "I certify that I am eligible for a CRD" and that's it. No check the boxes, no need for the PA to "guess" if the participant actually meets one or more of the conditions. It's just that easy. Second, please read this about "begging the question"; one of my pet peeves. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Begging-the-Question It doesn't "beg the question"; it RAISES the question. Almost never will you be correct in using "begging the question" unless you are truly making the logical fallacy argument in the citation.

If the form doesn't reflect what is supposed to happen, change the form or use a different one. The "forms" are NEVER supposed to drive the plan operation; they are there to SERVE the plan operation.

Kac1214: You don't have to and shouldn't be trying to get into the participant's head. That's why we have self-certification. If he wants to roll it over, he can. If he wants to take it in cash he can. If the plan wants to adopt CRD's it can, and they CAN be rolled over if the participant wants; maybe he's got enough cash for a couple of months and wants to warehouse the dollars until he needs to spend them. In any case, "I'm an educated man, but I'm afraid I can't speak intelligently about the travel habits of William Santiago" which is to say you have no idea why he wants to do that and it isn't up to you to figure it out since self-certification solves all that. Take YES for an answer. (If anybody doesn't get the reference, please watch A Few Good Men.)

How many angels can fit on the head of a pin? Stop overthinking this. Of course they can do that. The only thing that has changed is to give us MORE time to adopt a plan; that changes no other rules.

Me too; I would pause for a minute, give him the form to sign, and then the pause is all over!

I hate that arbitrary distinction; if I was still in that big HO in the sky, I would be arguing that our "recordkeeper" operation should be waiving all distribution fees for the short period that this applies. To do otherwise is nonsensical; if I'm the employer, I'll just tell the recordkeeper that it IS a CRD even if it may not be. What's the downside of that? Since the participant is the one who decides whether to treat it as a CRD, then I would suggest all distributions likely could be a CRD and the participant so certifies. Just typical home office stupidity.

Amazing, you say you understand and then you spout nonsense. I have a 401(k) plan for my company QPC. We contribute approx 5% of payroll with every payroll period, then true it up at the end of the year to make sure I have a 5% contribution. Since I have a last day of employment provision to get an allocation, there is no way the contributions made during the year are ALLOCATED until we reach the allocation date, which is also the valuation date, which is the last day of the plan year. Until that point, it's invested in the pool but it has not been allocated to anyone's account. If someone terminates on 5/1 of the calendar year plan, they get nothing of the 5% contribution that I'm planning on making for that year and those funds are freed up to help pay for the other people who, at the end of the year, are going to get their funds allocated. BTW, I'm done responding. You are entitled to your opinion, wrong though that it is.?

Did you try asking them? 952-806-4300 TSC TO ACQUIRE CBA’S RETIREMENT PLAN ADMINISTRATION BUSINESS Edina, MN – June 17, 2019 – TSC, Inc. and Corporate Benefit Administrators, Inc. (CBA) are pleased to announce that they have entered into an agreement for TSC to acquire CBA’s retirement plan administration business effective July 1, 2019. Through combining the strengths of these two successful organizations, the acquisition will provide many benefits to their employees, clients, and referral sources. CBA’s St. Cloud office will represent a second location for TSC’s operations. “CBA is a respected third party administration firm that is very well aligned with TSC’s business operations. It’s most valuable assets are the employees who have earned a reputation of providing excellent service to their clients and referral sources. TSC is excited to add the talented CBA workforce to its company.” said Matt Slyter, Vice President at TSC. “The acquisition of CBA not only strengthens our already very accomplished staff, but it allows us to continue focusing on innovation and product development while investing greater resources into our employee-owned company.” TSC and CBA are working diligently to ensure a smooth transition for everyone affected by the acquisition. Al Buckner and Joyce Buckner, partners at CBA, add “We’re excited about this opportunity for everyone. TSC is clearly committed to making this an effective transition, retaining the current CBA employees to continue working with their same clients, while offering our clients enhanced technology and compliance support. We could not have found a better partner for this acquisition, with TSC’s strong culture of customized, high-quality client service and outstanding support for our investment advisor business partners.” About TSC – Twin Cities based TSC provides clients throughout the United States with expert consulting, plan design, and administration solutions. Founded in 1966, TSC has grown to become one of the premier independent third-party administration firms in the country. Upon completion of the acquisition, TSC will have approximately 75 employees serving more than 3,000 employers and their financial advisors.

This is a case where by the time you are teaching the course, it will have been resolved, so you won't have to deal with the issue! Time heals all wounds?

IF my plan allowed CRD, then my response to the participant is: "That does not qualify, but here are the things that do. If you can certify that you are eligible, that is what we need to make the distribution. See attached self-certification form and sign and return to us if you qualify". I (my client) never had to deal with the qualification rules; it's always on the participant. If they lie, they lie. But no one is going to check.

I am quite willing to bet that the additional guidance that is coming will expand the definition substantially. Neither IRS nor Treasury nor Congress nor the White House want to be in the business of trying to figure out who is affected and how. That's why they put the self-certification in the law in the first place. IF I have a client who actually adopts CRD language (I don't expect very many), then they will simply get a signed statement from the participant that says "I certify that I am a qualified individual for purposes of section 2202 of the CARES Act to receive a Coronavirus Related Distribution". QED. The PA is done. I guarantee it is NOT possible for a PA to SWEAR/Certify that they know everything about the individual so that they can conclude the individual is not CRD eligible. Just not possible to prove a negative.

Nope; you are reading too much into it. Self certification will avoid any issues for the PA. There is no way the PA can KNOW with certainty that an individual does NOT meet any of the qualifications for certification. And when we get additional guidance from IRS/Treasury (which we will, and I venture soon), it will be even more clear that there is no way a PA can deny a claim when the participant certifies it.

Kevin, I probably chaired that session and wrote the Q&As, but I don't have it handy. If you saw it, why didn't you just copy it into your response; that would have been helpful I would bet. FWIW.

You are getting hung up on semantics. Money put into a trustee directed plan early in the year is not yet allocated since allocations are only done on the last day of the plan year. If it is not allocated (yet), then it's unallocated. That is NOT a suspense account or a forfeiture account; it's just part of the natural order of things for a trustee directed pooled account. I would suggest this is not a situation where we can agree to disagree; your statement above is simply wrong, whether you recognize the difference or not, and no matter how many plans "you have". FWIW.

MoJo, safe to say you misunderstand our discussion. A pooled plan is where the participants have no control over the investments; trustees make the decisions for all the money and all participants have the same rate of return. The whole plan is pooled, not just one pooled account in a participant directed account. And of course, you CANNOT "definitely determine" the benefits of each and every participant from the moment it is contributed to the plan, because the allocation to participant accounts takes place at year end. And, the allocation almost always includes funds not yet contributed, because a pooled, trustee directed plan is almost always reported on an accrued basis, so contributions that are made after the plan year FOR the plan year are shown in the year end balances (even though the money might not even be in the plan yet). The plan as an "accrued contribution" on the books. Hope that helps.

The problem is with whoever designed the plan. When you set up groups that are NOT each person in their own group, you MUST have a final group that is "anyone who isn't in one of the other groups". To leave that out is to have a failure by the plan designer to consider the very issue you have. Yes, solve it by doing a -11g and amending to add a catch all group.

Bless you my son! But, "it's good to be the king" (LS for MB).

And it all goes away with a trustee directed pooled plan; we have lots of clients who put their money in during the year, sometimes in January, to be allocated at year end. The earnings are just earnings of the assets, never 415 allocations.

Time to walk away from this client; we don't allow "slippery" clients and we demand the facts. Otherwise, find someone else to be your advisor. NEVER LIE TO US either; that's a sure way to get fired. Now, I question why anyone would terminate this plan mid year instead of as of year end, but that's a whole other thread of discussion that I have no desire to get into with the facts of this situation.

Before even trying to figure out the logistics, I would ask them WHY do they want to do that? Probably no good reason and they don't understand the ramifications of what they are considering. Your job is to find out what they think they are going to accomplish, and then advise them the best, legal way to do that, which may not be what they have asked. FWIW.

I have every one of his albums and had the wonderful experience of seeing him live at least twice (with the MOI) in the '70s. Billie The Mountain is still a favorite, but there's lots of others..... He really was a genius and most people don't know him well enough to know what he was capable of. If anyone is interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Zappa

The law says it's NOT an RMD. You can call an elephant a horse, but it's still an elephant (this year).

Sorry to hear that; I left big company in 1983 because, even though I was the top technical wiz, there were Peter Principal folks above me who didn't have a clue. So, we went out on our own when THEY went out of business! *I* am the sales AND the technical, so I rarely have a conflict with myself (it does happen; just not very often!). And with a client who asks for this, it is never an issue of "others can do it, why can't we" it's "here's how to accomplish what you want in a way that makes sense". Almost all business owners prefer that way, which is why we deal with business owners and not HR departments. It's also why we never answer a question when a client asks a question. Instead we ask "why do you want to do that" and you would be surprised what stupid answers we get that we can then show the client the better way to accomplish their objective.

The sole prop has to 1) determine what his contribution will be prior to 12/31 and 2) make the contribution as soon as his profit has been determined. If his accountant does his return on 1/15, he has to make the employee deferral part at that point; he does not have legally until the extended due date. This is something that most everyone gets wrong. Will the IRS challenge it? They have.