All Activity

If you can argue when the deposit started being late, leading to the 5330 filing requirement, that should guide which year to file for.

One-person plan, employees are in a separate MEP. Owner withholds the max 401(k) once a year on his 12/31 paycheck which is cut every year on 1/5. The pay is included in wages for year ending 12/31. Turns out owner forgot to deposit the 401k for 6 months. Lost earnings was calculated and deposited Perhaps this is a longshot but if the 401k is not going to be deposited until the next calendar year no matter what, for Form 5330 purposes can it be considered late for the next year, or more likely since it is included in taxes for prior year filing, does it have to be in that year's 5330?

The steps and forms the IRS suggests involve a “certification” some plans’ administrators might be reluctant or unwilling to state. Form 2: Receiving Plan’s Request to Distributing Plan would state: “To the best of my knowledge, . . . the Receiving Plan is tax-qualified[.]” Form 3: Distributing Plan’s Rollover Certification would state: “To the best of my knowledge, . . . the Distributing Plan is tax-qualified[.]” I recall when many people were unwilling to sign such a statement; is that still a problem?

We’re starting to hire a few employees outside our home country, and one thing I’m still struggling to understand is employee benefits. We plan to use an EOR rather than opening entities straight away. I’ve compared a few providers, and Globalization Partners is one we’ve been speaking with recently. I actually understand payroll and local employment side fairly well, but benefits get less clear when every country has different requirements and expectations. I don’t necessarily expect someone in Germany and someone in the UK to have identical benefits, but I also don’t want one package to feel noticeably worse just because of where the employee lives. So, I have a question for employers already doing this, do you normally let the EOR recommend a standard local package and work from there, or do you set your own global minimum and then add whatever is required locally?

Given actual earnings and the 1,000-hour requirement, a constantly updated balance could create more confusion than value. I’d probably look for a recordkeeper that can give participants online access to an estimated or periodically updated balance while keeping the actual annual crediting process unchanged. That gets the CEO most of what he wants without rebuilding a process that already works.

The proposed process has 5 steps and involves 4 "forms" (read exchanges of information between the distributing plan and the receiving plan). The process also encourages an electronic transfer of funds and disallows sending a rollover check directly to the participant to forward to the receiving plan. I agree with @Bri that the process likely will flow relatively smoothly for common plan designs on larger recordkeeping platforms. The first step of the process is for the participant to notify the receiving plan on the intent to make a rollover. This first step is an exchange of information between the participant who often has incomplete knowledge of about the provisions in their plan, and the receiving plan who has no knowledge about the distributing plan's provisions. Let's just say incorrect assumptions likely will be made about the features and administrative procedures of the distributing plan. @Bri's observation about the valuation frequency certainly is an issue. Here are some examples of a few more potential issues: The distributing plan has a graded vesting schedule and uses an hours rule for crediting vesting service. Hours worked in the vesting computation period will need to be collected from the plan sponsor. The distributing plan has a match or nonelective employer contribution without a last day allocation requirement (or waives it for retirement, death or disability) and the participant is eligible for an NEC which will not be made until after year end. The distributing plan has employer stock which is not publicly traded or other assets which valued less frequently than daily, and the valuation of these assets is not available daily. The individual who notifies the receiving plan about a rollover may assume they are a beneficiary or alternate payee entitled to a benefit when, in fact, they are not based on the terms of beneficiary elections or a QDRO. The participant who notifies the receiving plan has an outstanding loan and has not provided information to the distributing plan about whether the participant intends to payoff the loan prior to the distribution being paid (so it can be included in the rollover), or intends to let the loan default. The distributing plan may allow for in-kind distributions which will require much more coordination with the receiving plan than is contemplated in the proposed process. The participant is an HCE who tends routinely tends to receive refunds because the plan fails nondiscrimination testing. I expect our BenefitsLink neighbors easily can add many more examples a lack of familiarity with the operation of the distributing plan (both by the participant and the receiving plan) can cause chaos.

FWIW, I've taken over plans from several TPAs who routinely get TINs for all plans "because that's what we've always done". My take is that this was more prevalent 15+ years ago but now it isn't even really necessary for brokerage account plan - I've had several of them audited and there have been no problems with the agents separating plan accounts from business (or personal) accounts. That being said, @Peter Gulia is right - I'd ask why, but it's not really a big deal because they're so easy to get. The hill I will metaphorically die on is having sole props get an EIN before I install a one-person plan. So many accountants push back on that.

for Daybright Financial (Remote)View the full text of this job opportunity

for Daybright Financial (Remote)View the full text of this job opportunity

The client's goal is likely to allow a way for participants to have their hypo account balance online so they can "see" it, so it feels more real, so that the "retirement readiness" algorithms can include that balance in their projections. This can be done by adding the plan as "trustee directed" at the same recordkeeper who does the clients 401k. it would not be updated more frequently than now: annual determination, annual crediting. It would just be visible. The fiduciary aspect would be "can the CB investment advisor use the fund lineup to create a portfolio?" if you can get buy in there, this is a good way to accomplish your goal.

Bri, thank you. I get the difficulty about a distributing plan that still has a spouse’s-consent condition. So I learn something: About trustee-directed pooled assets, is the difficulty that such a plan often lacks daily valuation and might impose monthly, quarter-yearly, or yearly intervals and valuation dates to measure a distribution? Or is it something else? BenefitsLink neighbors, what other hang-ups happen in dealing with rollovers?

My guess is they'll either work great (common RK platform DC plans), or they'll be horrible (trustee-directed pooled assets with spousal consent).

for Nova 401(k) Associates (Remote)View the full text of this job opportunity

Can we simplify rollovers between retirement plans? Here’s yesterday’s prepublication release of IRS Guidance on Section 324 of the SECURE 2.0 Act with Respect to Rollovers, Notice 2026-49, 2026- -- I.R.B. --- (---, 2026), https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-26-49.pdf The Notice suggests a step-by-step way for a receiving plan to get information and money from a distributing plan. The Notice includes sample forms. Will this work?

I don't think I'd assume the IRS correction rules and DOL enforcement approach are interchangeable here. The late deposit issue is really an ERISA fiduciary/prohibited transaction issue, and the DOL can certainly look beyond the period that triggered the audit if it finds an ongoing practice. That said, I'd push back on 1999 before simply writing the check. The fact that the company was spun off and inherited the payroll practice may be relevant, particularly if you're dealing with a successor arrangement and the company had no reason at the time to understand that the inherited procedure was problematic. I'd ask the investigator specifically what authority they're relying on for requiring correction of 1999 and whether they're treating the 1999 amounts as part of the same continuing violation. If the dollars are truly insignificant, the practical answer may still be to correct it and move on, but I'd want the DOL's position in writing before conceding the point.

Yes, the dual HDHP coverage itself shouldn’t be the problem as long as both plans are actually HSA-qualified and neither person has other disqualifying coverage.

Every extra payroll option creates some admin, and if only a couple of people use it, I’m not sure there’s much benefit to the company or employees.

I checked the definition of highly-compensated employee in the basic plan document of a widely used recordkeeper’s set of IRS-preapproved document. It states expressly that compensation to determine who is a highly-compensated is not according to the plan’s definition of compensation but rather according to Internal Revenue Code § 414(q). That subsection states “‘compensation’ has the meaning given such term by section 415(c)(3).” I.R.C. § 415(q)(4). Your mileage may vary.

That’s the kind of work I’d happily let AI prepare if every answer links back to the source. I’d still want a human checking anything used to justify outreach, especially if the AI is inferring that a company might be unhappy with an advisor or recordkeeper.

Why don't they sign the participation agreements? What's the downside of just requesting it so there is no issue. As to @Paul I, based on the facts presented this would not be a conventional controlled group but likely is an affiliated service group with each PSC as an A Org and the Physic Corp the FSO under 414m. Otherwise, this could be a multiple employer plan, in which case, confirmation that the document permits non-controlled group/affiliated service group members to participate.

There are market based cash balance plans and variable investment plans that can be daily record kept like a DC plan. Participants can log in to a website and see their the value of their account at any time. The design can be cost prohibitive for smaller groups, but for larger groups, or HCE only designs, they work very well. My firm specialize in the variable design. This is not technically a "cash balance" plan, but relies on a different section of the IRC. There are some problems with market based cash balance - especially around NDT, which is why we prefer the variable design. PM me is you would like additional information.

also - how recently did they close the prior CB plan? why did they close it? will there be lifetime 415 limits that the new plan has to track/consider?

The accrued benefits (balances) the participants see on their statements (or a participant website) are hypothetical. The actual amount of $$ invested in the plan's trust is different, and rarely exactly equals the accrued benefits. Unless the plan's document calls for something more frequent than annual (some do say monthly or quarterly), the hypothetical balances only would be updated once a year. The amount the employer deposits - has nothing to do with how much interest is credited and when, to the participant's accrued benefit hypo balance. Actual earnings - is not a common plan design for cash balance plans for a variety of reasons - what interest credit rate does the CB document say? There is not recordkeeping in the same sense that there would be for a 401(k) or 403(b) plan.

The document includes it, but the client says they didn't pay any. So the total salary is under the HCE so that what it is? I just want to make sure I'm understanding

My understanding is any compensation paid by the employer to an employee who is or was on active duty for more than 30 days (e.g., differential pay or a continuation of the compensation) is considered in making the determination of the employee's status as an HCE, but the employer can elect to exclude this pay from the definition of Plan Compensation for purposes of determining contributions. This is based on the elections available in the pre-approved plan adoption agreement and the associated basic plan document that we use for our clients.