"For qualified plans, the tax withholding certificate for non-periodic payments and eligible rollover contributions is Form W-4R. For non-periodic payments, if no withholding election is made, the default withholding is 10%. For periodic payments made in regular installments over a period of more than one year, to elect withholding Form W-4P must be used. For RMDs they are clearly not eligible rollover contributions and are arguably not non-periodic payments but rather are typically regular payments that must be made to the participant for a period of more than a year. Thus, it's my view that if a participant wants tax withholding on an RMD that the Form W-4P rather than Form W-4R must be used. In fact, Form W-4R should have nothing to do with RMDs because if it did, then if no withholding election is made the Form W-4R mandates 10% withholding which should never apply to RMDs. Any comments?"

[Sponsored]

Don’t take our word for it. See for yourself what our subscribers say about us. Contact us at: sales@erisapedia.com or 612-605-2266

"100% owner of plan sponsor owns a second company 100% which is not a participating employer to the plan. He says there are no employees who would meet the plan's eligibility. The ADP test fails for 2022 (which includes data only for the covered company.). He wants to add his compensation from the non-sponsoring company which would help the test. I believe the answer clearly is no. (And yes we will get the census for non-sponsoring company to check this out.)"

"A participant has one set of elections for a current balance and a different set of elections for new money. Has anyone ever seen an auto-rebalance procedure that would put all of the current balance into the investments elected for new money? In other words, rather than rebalancing the current balance according to the current balance elections, this vendor assumes that 'rebalance' means to invest all of the current balance as if it were new money. It simply provides no way for auto-rebalance of a current balance to be according to the current balance elections. This is something I feel I need to alert clients about, but I'm curious if this vendor's practice is as unusual as it seems to be."

"Revenue Procedure 2021-30, Appendix B, Section .05(9) provides a special safe harbor correction method for plans that did not necessarily contain a automatic enrollment/increase feature. An 'Employee Elective Deferral Failure' is defined for these purposes in Section .05(10), which includes a failure to implement elective deferrals correctly, '...including elective deferrals pursuant to an affirmative election or...' and then goes on to list the Automatic Contribution feature and the improperly excluded employee situation. Section 350 appears to confine this special correction to plans with Automatic Contribution/Escalation provisions, or failure to afford an eligible employee the opportunity to make an election by improperly excluding them from the plan. Try as I might, I can't get to a reading of this that covers this other currently allowable special correction. Section 3 says no QNEC required if the requirements of (2)(B) are satisfied with regard to a reasonable administrative error described in 2(A)(i) or (ii) -- and neither (i) nor (ii) appear to cover the special fix for the situation I'm considering. Other thoughts/interpretations? Agree/disagree?"

"Prior to SECURE 2.0 there was the 3-year credit of 50% of plan admin costs up to $5,000 for small employers. I understand now that credit rate is 100%. PLUS there is now a new credit of 100% or an employer contribution up to $1000 per employee (phased down after year 2.) So a small employer starting a new plan gets both credits? That seems to be what I am reading. Is it really that good?"

"Let's say an employee makes $10,000 a year. He is not catch up eligible and he decides to contribute $9,000 as Roth in the 401(k) plan. He also would like to contribute $6,000 to a Roth IRA. Since the 401k and Roth IRA contribution limits are separate, I believe this scenario is fine (even though he's contributing more than his total income for the year into the 401(k) and Roth IRA combined). Do you agree?"

"I'm trying to confirm if the new new law changes the RBD for a non owner participant in a qualified plan that turned 72 in 2022, and retired in 2023. Is his RBD 4/1/2024 for a 2023 RMD under the old rules? Or since he retired in 2023 his RBD 4/1/2025 for for a 2024 RMD?"