Moosen14

I was wondering if anyone had direct experience or could point to guidance on an acceleration of payment/acceleration of vesting question. The regulations clearly permit an acceleration of vesting (Treas. Reg. 1.409A-2(j)(1)). For example, if an amount of deferred compensation vests after ten years and is payable upon a separation from service, it is not a violation for the service recipient to reduce the vesting requirement to five years, even if a service provider receives a payment in connection with a separation from service before the initial ten year period. What if the payment provision provided that a service provider would receive a payment of deferred compensation upon a separation from service that occurs after the participant reaches age sixty. Would an amendment to the Plan that provides a payment upon a separation from service at age 55 be compliant under the above reference provision (i.e. changing a condition constituting a substantial risk of forfeiture), or would it be considered an acceleration of a payment. The effect appears to be the same, but does the condition being in the payment event provision rather than a vesting provision change the nature of the amendment. Curious to hear what everyone thinks, or whether it is clearly answered anywhere.

It is my understanding that the 1094-B/1095-B may be utilized to validate claims for the Premium Tax Credit and report the individual and any dependents. If an employee participates in an ICHRA they are ineligible for the Premium Tax Credit no matter whether the coverage is affordable. Further, technically the penalty for the individual mandate has been repealed, but the statutory coverage requirement and reporting scheme enacted to verify the same has not been amended. So, my understanding, potentially useful for verifying MEC and PTC eligibility, but also, in many respects, a hold-over from the Individual Penalty years.

I would greatly appreciate anyone's insight on the below - The main question is what all entities are required to be included on part iv of Form 1094-C when a stock sale causes an entity to cease to be a member of one Aggregated ALE Group and become a member of second Aggregated ALE Group mid-year. A simple example scenario - SellCo is one of a number of a wholly-owned subsidiary of HoldCo and is an ALE Members of the "HoldCo Aggregated ALE Group". Mid-year HoldCo sells all of the stock of SellCo to BuyCo causing SellCo to become an ALE Member of the "BuyCo Aggregated ALE Group" (which assume includes other wholly owned-subsidiaries of BuyCo). What I am specifically wondering is for the subsequent 1094-C which all entities are required to be listed in part iv of the 1094-C filed by SellCo. (Other Ale Members of Aggregate ALE Group): All ALE Members of both the HoldCo Aggregated ALE Group and all ALE Members of the BuyCo Aggregated ALE Group, or only ALE Members of the BuyCo Aggregated ALE Group. I would greatly appreciate anyone's thoughts as I have come up empty handed on this (as well as any additional thoughts on whether this would impact the part III(d) Aggregated Group Indicator reporting.

I wanted to revisit a post that I reviewed from a few years ago relating to the acceleration of vesting/payment that is appropriately treated as a short-term deferral (see prior post here https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/63098-accelerating-payments-under-short-term-deferral-exception/ ). The question I have is generally whether company discretion to accelerate the vesting payment could serve as a premise the payment is no longer subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture. below is a brief fact-pattern of a situation that may present this issue, of course the facts are exhaustive so add in any points or items that may impact the analysis. Example - under a long-term bonus plan an employee is entitled to as a bonus payment of a portion of net company earnings for years 1 with 50% of the bonus being payable on 3/15 year 2 and 50% payable on 3/15 year three. The plan provides the employee must be employed on the payment date to receive the bonus. An employee wants to retire 1/1 Year three, and the company decides to move up the vesting date and payment of the second 50% payable on 3/15 to the employee's retirement. My understanding from the previous post is that since the payment was not covered under 409A to begin with, as a short term deferral, the acceleration is permissible and not a 409A violation. My question however, is whether the employer's discretion to accelerate the payment could be argued to no longer make the amounts subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture due to the risk of forfeiture not being substantial due to the company's discretion to voluntary accelerate the payments, cause the payment to fall outside of the short-term deferral. I know this is a facts and circumstances test, but does anyone have any insight on whether the company discretion may impact the substantial risk of forfeiture analysis? Thanks in advance for your time in reviewing and responding!

Bird and CuseFan. Your thoughts line up with how I was approaching it. Thanks for your time and input.

I've been lurking for awhile, getting great information, but decided to finally hop-on and pose a question. Apologies, if I missed any formalities or unwritten rules, let me know and I will make sure to address in the future! Thanks. I know the cross-tested profit sharing allocation being treated as a deemed CODA in a partnership setting has been addressed in a number of different posts, however, I had a question that I did not see addressed directly, and I wondered if anyone would like to opine on the below. Assume a plan has a profit-sharing feature that is allocated to individual allocation groups and tested on a cross-tested basis. The sponsor is a professional group treated as a partnership for federal tax purposes, with more than ten partners. The question stated as summarily as possible is whether a deemed CODA is created (or could be arguable be determined to be created by the IRS) if the partners year end partnership distribution (or bonus) is reduced by amounts they received as a profit sharing contribution. Stated differently, the plan sponsor/employer takes into account the profit sharing contribution in determining the partner/participants year end partnership distribution/bonus. Assume that the plan sponsor fully complies with plan formalities in regards to declaring the profit sharing contribution amounts and directions to the Trustee as to the allocation of the contribution to each individual allocation group/account, and there is no paper trail showing individual elections/requests of the partners relating to the amount the would desire to have contributed to their account. I have looked for agency determinations and formal/informal guidance on the matter and have not been able to find anything other than the "we will know abuse when we see it" response. Was wondering if anyone had either (A) firsthand experience with a similar matter or (B) could point to any guidance informative on the matter. Thank you!