"Plan calls for SC for loans with balance over $5k. So, if the balance is $6,500 and they want a loan for $3,000 I still have to get SC, right?"

[Sponsored]

Complimentary webinar Sept. 18. Mark Iwry will share his perspective on current and future developments and proposed reforms to strengthen the retirement system. For nearly three decades, Mark has fervently worked to craft national policies and develop innovative retirement solutions.

"An employee was terminated August 15, 2024. She will receive 2 months of severance pay. The SIMPLE Plan is through Schwab and just a standard prototype plan along with Form 5305. It is unclear by the definition of compensation if deferrals and the match are required on the 'severance pay'. Any information would be helpful!"

"401(k) plan excludes employees regularly scheduled for under 500 hours per year, with a failsafe that if such a person actually exceeds 500 hours in an eligibility computation period, they become eligible. This was done to avoid LTPT eligibility tracking, i.e., anyone with one year of 500 hours will be eligible to defer, so will not become an LTPT employee.

• Plan also provides that 500 hours in an eligibility computation period is an eligibility year of service.
• BIS is 500 hours.
• If someone moves from an eligible to ineligible class, they may no longer defer as of the date of the move.
• An employee has worked full-time for several years, and will have well over 1,000 hours in 2024. As of 1/1/25, they will move to part-time, scheduled for under 500 hours per year. Assume they actually work under 500 hours in 2025.

Is it permissible to move this person to ineligible status starting in 1/1/25 (the date they are no longer in an eligible class) such that they are no longer eligible to defer, despite having satisfied a year of eligibility service? If not, what about 1/1/26 after they have a one-year BIS in 2025?"

"A controlled group of companies, C, sponsors a 401(k) plan. Unbeknownst to C, one of its subsidiaries, N, in order to win a contract signed on as a participating employer in a multi-employer pension plan H. H has a frozen DB plan and a 401(k) plan, 12 of N's employees are eligible under both C's 401(k) and H's pension. H's DB plan could not pass testing, so using SECURE Act relief, they aggregated H into a DB/DC plan and then demanded data on C's entire control group of 4,000 employees -- which C gave them. The H plan then passed 410(b) and 401(a)(4) testing. Of course, C has been performing its own independent ADP/ACP testing for years, not even being aware of H until the recent demand for control group data. H's actuaries are now recommending that C go back in time and re-do their ADP/ACP testing to aggregate H's 401(k) data. H's actuaries admit that the SECURE Act relief that allowed H to aggregate its DB plan with its DC plan, and thereby pull in C, is silent on how H's decision to aggregate would affect C. So what say you experts? Does C have to re-do its historical ADP/ACP testing to add H's data to the mix?"

"Does anyone know if CMS would consider an HSA-qualified HDHP to be an integrated plan (as defined by the Creditable Coverage Simplified Determination safe harbor)? I have been looking for an authoritative source that tells me how to apply the safe harbor criteria when lifetime and annual limits for EHBs are no longer allowed by the ACA. Is it safe to entirely disregard the integrated plan criteria solely because two of the three plan provisions are no longer valid for most plans? In other words, can an employer rely on the highlighted instructions and apply the non-integrated plan criteria to a plan with a combined plan year deductible if that plan no longer has combined annual and lifetime maximums per the ACA?

Per CMS simplified determination method:

Integrated Plan -- An integrated plan is any plan of benefits that is offered to a Medicare eligible individual where the prescription drug benefit is combined with other coverage offered by the entity (i.e., medical, dental, vision, etc.) and the plan has all of the following plan provisions: [1] a combined plan year deductible for all benefits under the plan, 2) a combined annual benefit maximum for all benefits under the plan, and [3] a combined lifetime benefit maximum for all benefits under the plan.

A prescription drug plan that meets the above parameters is considered an integrated plan for the purpose of using the simplified method and would have to meet steps 1, 2, 3 and 4(c) of the simplified method. If it does not meet all of the criteria, then it is not considered to be an integrated plan and would have to meet steps 1, 2, 3 and either 4(a) or 4(b)."

"Plan sponsor is preparing a total rewards statement showing what the employee's pay and benefits sum up to and doesn't know what to put down under the Pension plan line. Doesn't seem to make sense to put their accrued monthly benefit. I'm curious what other plan sponsors do? Put down the value of the accrued benefit earned in the year? put down the present value of the accrued benefit earned during the year paid as a benefit at normal retirement age?"

"We have a client who signed the Cycle 3 plan restatement document on Monday, August 1, 2022. Is this late, or did we get a weekend extension in this case?"

"409A account balance plan that says payment may be made in cash or in-kind. The plan is informally funded with COLI and payment is to be made in a lump sum. If the plan sponsor transfers the COLI policy to the participant as payment, is there an issue?"

"Suppose you have a plan that doesn't qualify for any of the exceptions, so the SECURE auto-enrollment provisions apply. Plan is an ACA, but not an EACA, so will have to be amended to be an EACA, SECURE provisions, etc., etc. If the participant already has an election in place, can this be 'carried over' under the updated SECURE plan provisions? Would your answer change if the election in place is LESS THAN the minimum 3%?"

"In an ERISA Qualified Plan the Participant retired during the marriage of the parties and elected a 50% QJSA for his then current wife as he was required to do by law by Federal law.... Now, 6 years later, cometh the divorce, and the Participant wants his now ex-wife, the Alternate Payee, to pay the cost of the QJSA election, that is, the actuarially deduction from his retirement annuity to fund the survivor annuity and achieve actuarial equivalence pursuant to ERISA ... Problem 1: the Plan Administrators, like most Plan Administrators I have dealt with, have refused to allocate the cost to the ex-wife and to deduct that cost from the ex-wife's share of the retirement annuity. Problem 2: I cannot find any authority to confirm that ERISA permits the parties to agree, on the courts to compel, the cost of the survivor annuity to be paid by an Alternate Payee. The sections of ERISA require the Participant to elect a QJSA, but is silent about the 'cost'. Any ideas?"

"One of our clients is running into an issue with the testing due to being an employee-owned cooperative (we don't administer this plan, just their retirement plans). There are 17 employees and all are considered more than 5% owners due to the structure of the business. The people doing the testing are saying they fail '25% Key Employee Test, 55% Average Benefit Test and 25% Owners Test, since by definition everyone is considered an owner and Key Employee. Do these tests apply to a Plan under this type of structure?"