Larry Starr

IRS has now confirmed that the IRA deadline is also extended.

Definitely the way to go until we have some official guidance otherwise.

I am quite sure it is not a missed opportunity, and would treat it as such, unless they ever say otherwise. FWIW.

Haven't heard this one as a proposed provision, but I have not actually had time to review the proposed legislation; I usually like to wait to review until AFTER the legislation is passed.

Never had this, but see no reason why the investment advisors can't send a renewed invoice for the first two quarters with a zero fee.

I agree; we don't know enough info to answer. Why was the payment stopped and when?

We have to wait for Congress to get off its collective ass! This (and other issues) are on the agenda for the legislation.

Exactly.

No.

Well, let's start with what you DIDN'T tell us: are their wages going to be continued while laid off (BTW, neither furlough nor lay off is a well defined term; both are probably the same most of the time and they show an intent that the current employment situation is temporary and the employee is expected back when the lay off ends). I'm assuming payments are continuing (or the question makes no sense), so I would expect that the current elections need to be continued but the employee should be able to change their deductions (assuming changes are allowed with each payroll). The employer cannot unilaterally change the employee elections.

I'm going to believe that once they get the current bill done, we will get some clarifications that will allow the 4/15 date to move as well for IRA deposits. But, that and $1.50......

They could take the deduction (as they apparently did), but to quote an ex-president: "That would be wrong". However, the odds of them being caught are most likely less than 1%. And it is a timing issue for the return (as noted, not a plan level issue), so let them decide.

Why didn't you tell us what kind of distribution this is? But let's assume it is an allowed in-service distribution (maybe, say, a post retirement age employee wanting a partial payout). So the answers.... Yes, an interim val is needed, unless.... Yes, it should be done. Now what's the "unless" about? If the amount is clearly a small part of his account and you can go back later and recapture all the necessary data to do the interim valuation later as of the date of distribution, then I suppose it is possible to make the distribution without doing the interim val AT THAT POINT, but catching up later. However, while I can see this situation, it is not one I would ever voluntarily want to try to make work. Don't make your client's problem your problem!

I'm not sure I understand the question; can you restate that next to last sentence to clarify what you mean by "... like we do ACA filing or two...."?

Of course; anything and everything we can provide we are trying to do. My own background is deep in business "stuff" beyond just retirement, so clients also discuss those things with us. In these difficult times for some clients, we want to help as much as we can.

Yes; the same criteria: either a LARGE distribution, OR a significant change (up or down) in the asset values of the plan.

We have had similar phone calls and decisions by some of our dentists (and probably more that I haven't heard of yet). First, he doesn't have to FIRE them; he can put them on an unpaid leave of absence, subject to recall. They will still be eligible for unemployment benefits. As to the effect on the plan, almost definitely they will have a lower deferral, and maybe even more than just the missed weeks as they may need what they would have deferred in the weeks when they come back to recover from the weeks without full pay. I would suggest you can deal with the possible shortage on the 1000 hours by amending the plan for this one year to use a lower hour requirement (the amount to use would take into the hours not worked because of the layoff). If he didn't hire people back, I would more than likely suggest we treat it as a partial termination and fully vest those folk. But if he plans on calling them back still, I would continue to treat them as on a LOA and not have to fully vest UNTIL client actually decides he is terminating them (not expecting to hire them back). Lastly, if they don't have 1000 hours, why is that a 410b problem? My brain may not be functioning at 100% today, so maybe I'm missing something.

As I expected, I have no doubt that the hours you count ("every hour for which you are paid OR ENTITLED TO PAYMENT...") means that the hours worked during the year (even if some of the pay for the last period is in the next year) COUNTS for that first plan year. I assume the computation period is also plan year, so the same would hold for vesting. So in your example, the hours worked in 2019 will count for 2019; W-2 might not include some of the hours from that year but probably will include payment for some of the hours form 2018 if the same situation applied for that year.

Yes; it's full appropriate. The statements say 12/31/xx on them. The distribution forms tell them it might be different when paid out. All is covered.

Yes, we TALK about the possibility of the trustees/plan administrator doing an interim valuation to adjust the 12/31 value to a more "up to date" valuation of the account if there has been a significant underlying market adjustment (either up or down). But the call is always the employer's. And I assume you mean a 3/30/20 special "valuation", not allocation. Our statements are always as of the plan's stated valuation date (the last day of the plan year); if we do an interim valuation, we do prepare new benefit statements for all participants. We don't need to communicate anything specifically to the participants; our distribution forms package says that the 12/31 value may be adjusted at time of payout, and the SPD has language talking about possible interim valuations.

In fact, the THIRD way was added because of my pointing out at the "rollout" meeting that their rules were unrealistic in many ways and that there was nothing to prevent me from getting the credentials for each client and actually filing their returns. They were clearly NOT happy with me and my pointing out the holes in their carefully designed system. They actually believed that requiring unique web addresses to get the credentials would prevent people like us getting the credentials. It took all of about 3 seconds to explain that, since I have my own domain name, I have an unlimited number of email addresses, all of which coud be aliased back to just the one person who handles our process of getting the credentials and storing them in our database. When they later checked with me via Craig Hoffman (before announcing the "third way") to see if that would satisfy me, I explained that I appreciated their efforts and that probably a lot of folks might adopt that and it was a definite improvement, but I would NOT adopt it because it requires attaching an actual signed copy of the 55500, and as a public document, I had no desire making my client's legal signature available to anyone who wanted to copy it for any nefarious purposes. So we still do it the "Larry Starr" way, and so do a whole lot of other people. FWIW.

You can't make retroactive payments for 2019 for missed deferrals. It's that simple; they and you don't have that option. PERIOD. That seems to be your main request; the IRS correction process linked by ESOP guy gives you all the information that applies. That is the fix, but it doesn't include the ability to recapture lost 2019 deferrals. Note: it took you from May to November to notice that your deferrals weren't coming out of your paycheck; the government considers that your fault. You have a personal obligation to check on whether what you requested actually happened. Sorry, but that's the way it works.

This cannot be answered by any of us; you need to ask your (ex)employer.

Agreed. The employee met the eligibility requirements but wasn't there on the entry date. Therefore, when he is rehired he enters immediately since he would have entered already if he has been there on the entry date. That's the way re-hires work.

If you really want an answer, post the actual language from the plan. These things are VERY sensitive to the actual language, and just saying "it tracks" something is not enough to parse the actual language as written.