Larry Starr

You may also hear it called "table 1" or "table i" costs; all the same thing.

Because the agent wants to sell life insurance, silly!

You just don't make PW contributions for those HCEs. There is nothing that REQUIRES PW contributions for any particular person. If the plan is properly written, PW contributions are effectively allocated to each person as if they are in their own "group". You don't have to amend the plan at all. Obviously, if those HCEs are doing PW work, you will have to pay them in cash instead.

Yes, there is no REQUIREMENT that in-service withdrawals ever be offered. It is an option for the plan design.

Sorry, but that's just not the reason. I have no issue with clients adding the option, but upon explanation of what it means, they just prefer not to. I could SELL every one of them on the "need" to do it, but that's not the way we work. If ALL of your clients opted to do it, then it's very hard to believe each and every one of them made a considered choice; maybe they did, but EVERY client elected it? I'm guessing there was some "salesmanship" involved. FWIW.

Answers: 1) Yes. 2) Yes.

I am part of Alan Gassman's team. We are collectively of the opinion that for C or S corporate owners who are also employees, any retirement contributions made during the covered period (the 8 or 24 weeks) COUNTS toward the compensation limit. There is a note on the EZ form for forgiveness that confuses the issues (and the same note is NOT on the long form!) but we see no justification in any of the laws or IFRs or FAQs that would limit the contributions for C and S corps made during the covered period, which would include contributions for 2019 (on extension) or 2020. Of course, the SBA can always add MORE confusion by giving us more rules on this area. For now, we are recommending the above treatment. This is also what we are telling the hundreds of accts and others attending our Boston Tax Institute seminars where we do a 4-5 hour deep dive through every line on the reimbursement forms and reference them to the instructions or the FAQs or whatever..... I am on faculty of BTI.

Let's go back to the original question: Would a QDRO be necessary to get a judge to sign off a Default Judgement in California? The Florida form mentioned is a Property Order Attachment to Judgement. As such, it is the judge's order regarding how property is to be distributed. If includes the info on which of the two are going to be responsible for getting the QDRO, what it will do, and how the fee for the QDRO will be paid. So, it appears this is NOT a governmental plan and no reason to expect it is. So the answer to the question posed is that the QDRO does not appear to be necessary to get the judge to sign off on the property order, but that order is going to say whether a QDRO is required, what it should do, and who is going to pay for it. After it is drafted, the judge is certainly going to have to actually sign it since a DRO is what he will be issuing and the plan will then determined if it is qualified (a QDRO).

While we don't have specific guidance, and I agree that it makes not much sense to put it in just to limit its time period, I don't think it's a protected 411(d)(6) protected benefit. I do think it can be discriminatory if HCEs used it in the early time period and then you shut it off. BTW, as of today, we have not had one client who desired to add CRD options to their plan.

I worry about the language you used. First, Belgrath sent you to the IRS FAQ, but the simple answer is: You can set up a SEP plan for a year as late as the due date (including extensions) of your business’s income tax return for that year. Second, you cannot set up a SEP "for an employee". You set it up for the employer and all eligible employees have to get the contribution. You did not give us information about the employee makeup so we have no idea if you have only one employee who is eligible, but you need to understand the SEP rules, so make sure you are aware how they work.

Question 1: The best answer is that all of the guidance so far seems to allow for the full contribution made during the covered period (the 8 or 24 weeks) counts toward the forgiveness (except for those who file Schedule SEs: sole props, and partners). Question 2: PPP does not require that it go into an allocated account; you need to follow your plan document with regard to how you handle employer contributions made during the year. If an unallocated account is provided for that purpose, PPP doesn't not limit its use.

This is generally not the forum for this question. A general statement: if you are looking to get part of your soon-to-be ex spouse's benefits, you have to get a QDRO prepared, accepted by the court, and accepted by the plan. You need to hire someone who can help you with that.

Just an added note: I would talk the client out of this stupidity. He now has 365 entry dates instead of, generally, two. No doubt it will get screwed up - guaranteed.

The rules changed effective 1/1/20. You can adopt the nonelective safe harbor right up until the end of the year. If you adopt it before the 30th day before the year end (December 1), you can have the 3% nonelective. If you go into December or later to adopt the new plan, you have to use 4% for that first year. Of course, always remember that the employee deferrals have to occur DURING the plan year, so I'm not sure we'd ever adopt a 401(k) after 12/31, but we certainly could adopt the PS part with the 401(k) effective the following year. Here is from ERISApedia: Late Adoption of Safe Harbor Nonelective Plans Effective Date. This subsection is effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2019. Amendment 30 Days Prior to End of the Plan Year. A plan may be amended at any time before the 30th day before the close of the plan year to adopt a 3% minimum nonelective contribution for a ADP 401(k) safe harbor plan. [Code §401(k)(12)(F)(i)(I) as added by the SECURE Act 103] Amendment by End of Following Plan Year. A plan may be amended at any time before the close of the following plan year to adopt the minimum nonelective contribution for an ADP 401(k) safe harbor plan, provided that the nonelective contribution is not less than 4% of compensation. [Code §401(k)(12)(F)(i)(II) and (F)(iii) as added by the SECURE Act 103]

You have not provided adequate information to deal with your issue. I'm assuming you are NOT the employee who earned the retirement benefit, but the ex spouse who was supposed to be entitled to some part of you ex's benefit. You HAVE to get a QDRO if the plan is to pay you anything. You need to talk to your divorce lawyer and find out why the QDRO was not done. Until it is done, you have no rights under the plan as an ex-spouse.

Sure sounds wrong to me; the employer should be asked why it is reflected that way. Child support payments are neither deductible by the payer nor taxable to the recipient. When you calculate your gross income to see if you're required to file a tax return, don't include child support payments received.

I bet your language limits hours credited for time not actually worked only up to 500 hours and only to prevent a break in service If he doesn't have a break in service, no hours are credited. Is that what your document actually says?

Agreed. We would normally have it as a single plan, but this scenario is possible as well.

Most important first question: are they a corporation or a non-corporate entity? And the other questions are also needed, but the second one is did they declare bankruptcy?

Another comment; we want plan years and fiscal years to line up. If we were taking this over, we would run a short plan year on the DC plan to make it line up with the fiscal year and establish the DB plan on the same basis. Just something else to think about.....

No. But he can roll it into an IRA and get the same results.

Just to point out: we have a perverted rule for non-J&S plans. That rule is the one that REQUIRES that the spouse be the beneficiary of 100% of the account. Thus, if you leave out J&S, you are automatically DISINHERITING the children of a prior marriage. I guarantee you that when you explain to the owner who is remarried with children from the prior marriage, he/she is usually livid when I point out that their prior plan advisor has mandated that his children are disinherited from any retirement plan money in the event of his/her death, and always without discussing it with the client. The solution (and if enacted, then I would be happy to eliminate J&S) is to STILL allow for 50% of the death benefit to be directed to other beneficiaries and to only require that 50% of the account go to the spouse. For many of my business owners, this is a real and significant problem, but the spousal consent for the lump sum distribution has never been a problem in over 35 years of doing this, and we will manage through this COVID problem of getting notary signatures. Just FWIW.

Super!

If the employer was the a lawyer it was probably a good thing, because any participant could have said "that's not required and I'm not going to get it" with regard to spouse consent and then go to DOL and claim ERISA rights interference.

Absolutely correct; I do worry about OP asking IF this is going to be subject to general testing, as that is a very basic issue in this situation that should be obvious. What else could it be?