Bob the Swimmer

Agree with MESQ--have not ever seen (or contemplated) an ESOP owned by an ATEO.

YES--see below Text of IRS Notice 2021-21: Relief for Form 1040 Filers Affected by Ongoing Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic (PDF) "The postponement of the due date for filing these Federal income tax returns to May 17, 2021, also automatically postpones to the same date the time for Affected Taxpayers to make 2020 contributions to their individual retirement arrangements (IRAs and Roth IRAs), health savings accounts (HSAs), Archer Medical Savings Accounts (Archer MSAs), and Coverdell education savings accounts (Coverdell ESAs). This postponement also automatically postpones to May 17, 2021, the time for reporting and payment of the 10-percent additional tax on amounts includible in gross income from 2020 distributions from IRAs or workplace-based retirement plans.... Because filers of Form 5498 series are Affected Taxpayers, the due date for filing and furnishing the Form 5498 series is postponed to June 30, 2021.&qu ot; MORE >>

I'm an ERISA attorney, among other things... and ESOP Guy is dead spot on. In essence, one mantra is that you cannot ever delegate completely and a fiduciary always has a duty to oversee. As Harry Truman said, "The buck stops here." An important part of the DOL recent line of ESOP cases is that fiduciaries thought they were delegating but did a fairly obviously inadequate job of overseeing the experts they hired.

Agreed---de minimis is also misspelled

Well said MoJo. Fiduciary liability cannot be passed off like a bad check.

We've got an actuary we'd recommend in the middle of the country with good chops for what you're looking for. He's handled my plans for 17 years.

My understanding of the probate laws is that you’ll have to probate his estate anyway in any state in the US with or without the IRA included.

Where was the original actuary in all this, preparing required reports with what was going on ?

I contributed greater than 6% one year and the vendor sets up a new account for the excess--until utilized---can be a pain in the neck.

I might add to Former Esq.'s good points that, in our practice, we typically utilize Good Reason termination by the individual in CIC situations---the rationale for this provision is many employers don't necessarily want to pay someone who leaves voluntarily but was not "pushed out" or made to accept a lower position or pay/benefits package or relocation of a certain distance from the office----and we use 2 years within that provision. It looks like the intent here is to simply focus on paying at age 70 or CIC if earlier without any reason for the person leaving, which is fine, but is a little different than the norm.

Please see attached as an inspiring note for Christmas--- Best wishes for the New Year----BOB

I was guessing a Teamsters plan also. Thanks Peter.

Accounting treatment is an asset of the corporation and a corresponding liability of the corporation. We have seen accounting firms miss this.

10 days is a little stiff, where most plans allow much longer. Are you sure the plan document does not allow longer time frame and 10 days is mainly a stretch goal ?

What does the SAR plan say ? I have not seen them be part of an earn-out, but earn-outs are increasing according to surveys due to the volatile economy.

They might be worried about the problem of trailing assets not yet distributed from a plan. Sounds like it's just a reminder to be aware of the requirements for filing if any assets have not been distributed by YE 10/31/19.

What does the Plan say ? If it goes to the estate, the probate court will decide if the new beneficiary meets the testator's requirements,

I don't see an issue either, except it's a bit unusual to have a CNTC, non-disparagement for a director.

AUSTIN--- From memory bank, there is a definition of "reasonable cause" in the Code which we have used many years ago as a catch-all for abatement of penalties. Back then, more than 20 years ago, it worked. Have not done this recently but it sounds like you have a good position to stand on, assuming you have reasonable cause as they define it.

I would say no---otherwise if he has the ability to accelerate that should be taxable in year one.

Effen--- That's what I meant--not required to be filed. I maintained one for my business for 12 years.

Remember also that if it is a single person plan, the SB is not required.

My understanding with the DOL is we have always given a fixed date for the audit to be done and filed and then met that promise. If you set a reasonably expeditious date and then meet it, I have never seen a client penalized in several dozen of these over 4 decades. By the same token if an auditor cannot get it done within the 45-day requirement (unless multiple years are involved), shame on them--get another auditor.

I'd try one of the trade groups, or the Pension Research Council at Wharton or EBRI in DC or these below: The American Retirement Association is comprised of five premier retirement industry associations; the American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries (ASPPA), the American Society of Enrolled Actuaries (ASEA), the National Association of Plan Advisors (NAPA), the National Tax-deferred Savings Association (NTSA), ...

Agree with Bill--- these are responsibilities of the plan sponsor or their delegates not that of an accounting department employee IMHO unless there is some arrangement we're not aware of. And I've seen several thousand of these audits as an executive with a Big Four that audits these plans over 20 years.