Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

The ABC Company drafted there new plan which includes hardship withdrawals. The attorneys have included an added hardship reason which I have known as facts and circumstances. In addition to the safe harbor reasons this plan states "any other contingency determined by the IRS to constitute an "immediate and heavy financial need" within the meaning of the Treasury Regulation Section 1.401(k)-1(d)". When I questioned the client about this addition the attorney told ABC Company that this is now standard practice.

Is this true?

Posted
The ABC Company drafted there new plan which includes hardship withdrawals. The attorneys have included an added hardship reason which I have known as facts and circumstances. In addition to the safe harbor reasons this plan states "any other contingency determined by the IRS to constitute an "immediate and heavy financial need" within the meaning of the Treasury Regulation Section 1.401(k)-1(d)". When I questioned the client about this addition the attorney told ABC Company that this is now standard practice.

Is this true?

I'm sorry, but which item are you questioning -- the "facts and circumstances" reasons, or the IRS' safe harbor reasons?

FWIW - we only allow hardships based on the IRS' pre-defined reasons.

R. Alexander

Posted

Is this simply an automatic conformity clause? In other words, if a hardship reason is added to the safe harbor list, then the plan automatically includes that reason without having to amend the plan.

Posted
Is this simply an automatic conformity clause? In other words, if a hardship reason is added to the safe harbor list, then the plan automatically includes that reason without having to amend the plan.

That was my initial thought: "All the safe harbor reasons as of today, plus any more they throw at us in the future."

QKA, QPA, CPC, ERPA

Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left.

Posted
"any other contingency determined by the IRS to constitute an "immediate and heavy financial need" within the meaning of the Treasury Regulation Section 1.401(k)-1(d)"

I've seen that language (or to the effect)... as others have said, it's for automatic conformity.

An excellent example is the Hurricane Katrina hardship allowed several years ago.

Kurt Vonnegut: 'To be is to do'-Socrates 'To do is to be'-Jean-Paul Sartre 'Do be do be do'-Frank Sinatra

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use