SSRRS

Thank you so much, the pension maven!

If this is an owner only plan, then aren't you correct in filing the EZ?

Thanks so much Nate. If on the first filing (without the SB), on the 5500-SF, the form SB was not checked off as being required, in the interim, until the filing is amended to include the sb, would that help?

What are the ramifications, if efiled without the SB and then amend a couple of days later to include the SB? Thank you!

Thank you Effen. The accountant is complaining that now with the prepaid off the books, the value etc is lower. This effects if they need a bond etc as thier value is lower.

It was an owner only plan. The owner and his wife both elected a lump sum rollover and the spousal waiver consents were executed.

Thank you.

Truphao, thank you very much. Your knowledge is much appreciated. Can this potentially have a tax impact, since an expense of 567,000 will have to be used to wipe out the prepaid of 567,000? I'm just trying to get a better understanding. Thanks!

Hi A DB Plan on 01/01/2022 had a prepaid (FASB) of $567,000. The plan terminated in November 2022 and the assets were rolled over into IRAs in November 22. At 12 31 22 (and forward) what happens to the prepaid? Thank you very much.

Is there a reason that this unreasonable penalty is not being contested by any of the organizations?

CuseFan, do you recommend the provision of using a special valuation date? Thank you.

Hi Everyone, How does the following provision in a DB Plan document sound to you? " For Employees paid both on a commission and base pay basis, compensation shall be limited to $60,000." Thank you as always.

CuseFan, thank you very much! And thank you ALL for all your insights and knowledge!

Thank you Jakyasar and Bri. ..Jakyasar while I hear your point of the participant complaining due to the significant difference between the 2021 and 2022 rates., however, what was really bothering me is the following: If someone wants to the ethical and right thing and not take away money that realty should be due to someone-then it would seem that the right thing to do would be to work it out somehow (amendment etc.) to ensure that the larger lump sum is given (even if the participant does not realize the difference in the rates-just want to do the right thing)--Yet, on the other hand it is bothering me that maybe by giving the larger amount, this might be taking money from the sponsor, as maybe the sponsor would say that it could be that while the larger lump sum should have been given, however, we are now in 2023 and therefore the 2022 rates should be used and thus give a lower lump sum. Would it be advisable to give the sponsor a choice and ask him if he is ok with giving the larger lump sum or if he wants to use the lower amount- as this way we know for sure that we are not "harming" the sponsor in our attempt to do the right thing for the participant? Thank you ALL for any INSIGHTS ON THIS.

Thanks, as usual you put it perfectly.

CuseFan Thank you for your insights. As you mentioned, the 30 day notice would have been for sure waived, as the participant wanted the money asap. Since reasonably, the participant should have received his options by mid December 2022 therefore technically the larger lump sum is owed to him (as if things were completed in the proper timely manner, the larger lump sum would have been used) and therefore, by giving the larger lump sum, we are giving the NHCE what is truly owed to him and money is NOT being improperly taken from the sponsor? Thank you

Thank you very much CuseFan, truphao, and Lou. Yes, as you mentioned Lou, the plan is well overfunded by approximately 1.2 million, and this employee has always been an NHCE (55K salary range throughout his career).

Lou S. thank you. Your knowledge and analytical approach is always appreciated 1. The delay was due to the TPA not completing the final benefit calculations until 2023. If the participant announced he was retiring (at age 69) and requested his benefit amounts back in in November 2022, when is the due date to give the employee his/her options , 30 days?

Hi, A Happy and Healthy New Year to all. Calendar year DB Plan uses December as the look back for the 417e rates for lump sum calculations. A participant requested on Nov 7 2022 his benefit, as he was retiring. Had the benefit been prepared anytime prior to 12 31 22 then the lump sum would have been calculated based on the 417e rates of December 2021. The December 2021 were quite low and thus, the lump sum would have been quite high. Although the sponsor was pushing in late December for the calculations to be completed, however it was not done until now in 2023. Question: The December 2022 rates are much higher and therefore the lump sum, calculated now in 2023, will be much lower. Do we give the participant the lower lump sum, or do we say, that since the participant requested his benefit in November 2022 and the sponsor really was pushing in late December 2022 for the benefits to be completed that the lump sum should be calculated as if it was done in 2022 based on the lower December 2021 417e rates and therefore give a higher lump sum? Thank you for any insights etc on this.

Intresting question. However, what would happen if the sponsor in 22 decided to amend to 100 percent immediate vesting? The RMD would seemingly still based on the 12 31 21 value of 60% as the amendment occurred in 22. The same should apply for a termination that increases vesting to 100% during 22.

Hi, At 250 a day for late 5500, isn't that quite steep...is there a grace period? Yes, there Is the DFVCP, however tax returns allow to file a few days late with barely any penalty (relatively). Thank you for any insights etc.

There is a seven day grace period, in which they automatically wave any penalty.

Question 10a of the EZ pertains to information that would be taken from the SB.

In case anyone not aware--all parts of Florida are extended until 2/15/23.

Thank you very much Lou. As always you sure are on top of your game. The reason for this post actually, is because a company wants to open a DB Plan and a 401k SH (3%) as well. The issue is, is it prudent to use the 3% non elective Safe Harbor to the 401k as the DC offset contribution or safer to stay away, since the DC Offset contribution will be les than 5%? Thank you in advance.