C. B. Zeller

I think the plan administrator is right - the benefit was paid in 2019. Whether or not the participant cashed the check is irrelevant. Was a 1099-R issued?

The popular consensus seemed to be that it would not be permissible. However I don't think there has been anything official one way or the other.

It applies to all types of plans. However it only applies to tax years beginning after 12/31/2019.

No. SECURE removed the notice requirement for the ADP safe harbor of 401(k)(12) and 401(k)(13) but did not remove it for the ACP safe harbor of 401(m)(11) and 401(m)(12).

No. Borrowing is only available to satisfy ACP if the 401(k) portion of the plan is subject to the ADP test. See 1.401(m)-2(a)(6)(ii) No need to switch ACP to current year testing, unless they want to.

Getting a little off topic - I work mainly with CB plans so forgive me if this is a silly question - but if a plan defines the stability period for 417(e) as the calendar month, and you have to give the participant 30 days to consider their distribution options, then how do you ever get a valid election form into the hands of the participant? Won't the lump sum always be different from the amount illustrated due to new segment rates being issued while the participant was reviewing their options? To bring it back on topic - assuming that the answer to the above question isn't to provide an entirely new set of disclosures every month, doesn't that imply that the plan should have some way of dealing with the fact that lump sum amounts will fluctuate based on timing?

Would it be an option to retroactively amend to provide 100% vesting on death?

I agree the participant could have elected to postpone commencement, but if I'm understanding the situation correctly, it sounds like the participant agreed to a certain benefit date, received payment on that date, then changed their mind after the fact. Based on that fact pattern I would say it's too late. The IRS said (last year, I think) that once the plan cuts a check the benefit is considered distributed, regardless of whether the participant cashes it.

There is a section in the instructions for the 5330 titled "Claim for Refund or Credit/ Amended Return." I would start there.

If the loan offset was a qualified loan offset (due to termination of employment) code M should be used in addition to code 1 or 2 as applicable.

Another one that might apply on an annual basis is an ERISA 101(j) notice for a plan that is subject to benefit restrictions due to its funded status.

Let's make a list. A lot of them are conditional depending on plan design. SAR (if not subject to Title IV) AFN (if subject to Title IV) Benefit Statement (4x per year if participant-directed DC plan, 1x per year if not participant-directed, 1x per 3 years if DB plan) For a participant-directed plan, the benefit statement might include the additional information required by ERISA 105(a)(2), or it could be furnished in separate notice(s) Safe Harbor Notice (if a safe harbor 401(k) plan) QDIA Notice (if plan uses a QDIA) EACA Notice (if an EACA) QACA Notice (if a QACA) What else am I missing?

The CARES Act provides that a Plan Administrator may rely on the participant's certification that they are a qualified individual in determining if any distribution is a CRD. Therefore, the participant may certify that they are a qualified individual, and the plan may treat the distribution made in January as a CRD, and accept it as a rollover. The CARES Act does not require the IRS to rely on a self-certification; the individual must in fact be a qualified individual in order to exclude the amount of the rolled over distribution from their income on their tax return. In this situation, my advice would be: If the participant is a qualified individual (as defined in CARES), and has not otherwise used up their $100,000 CRD limit, then proceed as Larry suggests. If they are not a qualified individual, then wait and see if the HEROES Act passes, since it will allow the rollover to be done without any workarounds. If HEROES goes nowhere, sit tight. The IRS may announce new qualifying factors which could make the participant a qualifying individual. Failing that, there is no time limit on when the participant may make the certification as a qualified individual; if circumstances change any time before the end of 2022 they can still certify and roll the amount of the distribution back into the plan or IRA.

The HEROES Act contains this relief. It waives the 60-day requirement for rollovers of distributions which would have been RMDs if not for CARES/HEROES until December 1, 2020. The bill was passed by the House but is still pending in the Senate.

I would just remind them that retirement plans must be intended to be permanent (and not a shelter for a one-time windfall), and contributions to a profit sharing plan must be substantial and recurring. As long as they are ok with making some other contributions in some future years it should be fine.

If it's within the 2 year period then an operational failure can be self-corrected regardless of whether it's significant or insignificant. An insignificant operational failure can be self-corrected at any time. I don't know if the failure is significant or not based on the info presented.

There are 2 ways to correct this under Rev. Proc. 2019-19: Treat it as an excess allocation. Move the amount (adjusted for earnings) to an unallocated account (aka suspense account) which must be used to reduce future employer contributions. The employer may not make any further contributions to the plan, other than elective deferrals, while money remains in the unallocated account. Retroactively adopt an amendment making the employee eligible as of the date they began receiving contributions. This is only available if the employee is NHCE. It doesn't matter if the failure crossed more than one calendar year or plan year, as long as it is not beyond the end of the second plan year after the year in which the failure occurred.

Check the plan document again, it should define a "Compensation Measurement Period" or "Compensation Computation Period." It might be through a reference, for example it might say that the compensation measurement period is the limitation year, so then you would have to check the definition of limitation year. But as long as the document says that compensation is measured for the fiscal year ending in the plan year, or similar, it should be fine.

There is a question on the 5500 asking if there was a blackout period, and if the notice was provided, so you are going to have to report it one way or another.

You have a MEP when two or more unrelated employers adopt the same plan. If one of the adopting employers wishes to leave the MEP, all that is needed is for the plan sponsor and the employer in question to execute an agreement terminating that employer's participation in the MEP. This is not a plan termination, only a termination of participation. You didn't ask, but this generally does not constitute a distributable event since it is not a plan termination. Therefore the participants wouldn't be able to roll over their balances into the new plan. I never heard of Tri-Net so I looked them up. It looks like they are a firm that handles HR functions for other companies who want to outsource those functions. I also looked them up on EFAST. I found a Tri-Net 401(k) and a Tri-Net Profit Sharing Plan but both of them are filed as single employer plans. My guess is what they have is not a true MEP - it is probably separate plans, each with their own plan documents and 5500s, but maybe the assets are pooled together to get better pricing. See if you can get a copy of their latest SAR, it might help answer some questions.

You can correct under EPCRS by retroactively amending the plan to make them eligible, as long as they are NHCEs.

There are multiple ways to calculate the earnings on a corrective deposit. You should read Rev. Proc. 2019-19 Appendix B section 3. If you are a subscriber to Erisapedia.com, their Plan Corrections eSource is a great reference for this kind of thing.

Good point, I wasn't thinking about participants who might not have a smartphone. They could bookmark the page on their phone or save a copy of the disclosure after opening it.

What's the reasoning here? In this situation I think hard copy is worse because it results in more effort on the part of the participant to be able to access the disclosures.

Except that you can't click on a piece of paper. My impression is that the DOL wants the disclosures to be as easy to access as possible. Requiring a participant to read a URL off a piece of paper and type it in to their browser, especially if it is a long URL, is not easy and few are likely to actually do it. I could see a QR code being ok on a printed notice though.