Source: https://retirementlc.com/category/case-week/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 01:47:30+00:00

Document:
ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs, qualified retirement plans and other types of retirement savings and income plans, including nonqualified plans, stock options, and Social Security and Medicare. We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business. A recent call with a financial advisor from New Jersey is representative of a common inquiry related to in-service distributions from qualified retirement plans.
The effect on top-heavy determination.
Several types of retirement plans can offer in-service distributions, including 401(k), profit sharing, employee stock ownership and even defined benefit plans. If a plan sponsor desires an in-service distribution option, it must be formally written into the plan document, either when adopted or later through a plan amendment. The plan sponsor would need to check with its document provider for the exact adoption or amendment steps. For example, adding an in-service distribution option to a prototype 401(k) plan can be as easy as checking a box on the adoption agreement, selecting an effective date, signing the amendment and notifying participants of the change.
There are pros and cons to including an in-service distribution option in a plan. The pros include increased participant control of plan assets, and a higher level of participant satisfaction with the plan. The cons include the potential for greater administrative burdens and cost to the plan sponsor as a result of an increase in the number of distribution requests, potential taxes and penalties for the distribution recipient, and depletion of savings meant for retirement income.
Plan participants need to understand the taxation rules that apply to in-service distributions. Any pre-tax amounts that are distributed from a plan prior to age 59½ will be subject to taxation and, possibly, an early distribution penalty tax, unless an exception applies. Completing a rollover of the in-service distribution either directly or indirectly within 60 days of receipt is one way to delay any tax impact.
If a plan sponsor wants to add an in-service distribution option, it can choose to make the option very liberal or attach restrictions such as a requirement for a participant to reach a certain age, or complete a set amount of service. It is important to note that the IRS does not allow employee pre-tax elective deferrals to be distributed prior to age 59½, nor defined benefit assets to be distributed prior to age 62 under the in-service distribution rules. The plan sponsor could also limit access to a particular contribution source or sources (e.g., matching contributions, after-tax, etc.).
Distributions are part of the benefits, rights and features of a plan under Treasury Regulation §1.401(a)(4)-4. Therefore, if a plan offers in-service distributions, it must do so in a nondiscriminatory manner (i.e., not make them disproportionately more available to highly compensated employees (HCEs) than nonHCEs).
Finally, keep in mind that in-service distributions from a qualified retirement plan can affect top-heavy determination for up to five years. A plan is top-heavy if the key employees own more than 60 percent of the plan’s assets or benefits on the determination date. In-service distributions for active employees are added back to account balances if the distribution occurred within the five-year period ending on the determination date (Treasury Regulation §1.416-1, T-30)).
When the desire to give plan participants greater control of their plan assets exists, plan sponsors and participants may look to in-service distributions of retirement plan assets as a possible solution. But there are several important considerations surrounding such a plan feature. Financial advisors can help educate their clients on the pros and cons of adding, or changing the terms of an existing, in-service distribution option.
ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs, qualified retirement plans and other types of retirement savings and income plans, including nonqualified plans, stock options, and Social Security and Medicare. We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business. A recent call with a financial advisor from Texas is representative of a common inquiry related to stock or securities held in an employer-sponsored retirement plan.
For the definitive answer, one must turn to the language of the governing plan document. The responsible party will be different depending on whether the plan specifies that plan investments are directed by 1) the plan participant; 2) a discretionary trustee; 3) an ERISA 3(38) investment manager; or 4) plan administrator or other named fiduciary. The DOL issued guidance on this matter in Interpretive Bulletin (IB) 2016-01.
In plans where investments are participant-directed, a plan participant has the responsibility to direct the trustee as to the manner in which any voting rights should be exercised. Assuming the plan participant timely received all notices, prospectuses, financial statements and proxy solicitation, the terms of the plan document should address who or what entity assumes the voting responsibility when participants fail to give instructions. For example, many plan documents will specify the plan trustee as the entity to vote in lieu of receiving participant instructions. Alternatively, the plan may specify another plan fiduciary such as an investment manager.
In some cases, the plan trustee, who has investment discretion, has the obligation to vote proxies on securities held in a qualified retirement plan. That responsibility is an extension of the trustee’s fiduciary responsibility to prudently manage plan assets in the best interest of plan participants. However, if the trustee is a directed trustee (i.e., subject to the direction of a named fiduciary), then the named fiduciary would retain the responsibility for the voting of proxies.
The plan document may specify that an ERISA 3(38) investment manager is responsible for directing investments, including the responsibility for proxy voting. If the plan document or investment management agreement provides that the investment manager is not required to vote proxies, but does not expressly preclude the investment manager from voting proxies, the plan’s investment manager has exclusive responsibility for voting proxies. However, if the plan document or investment management agreement expressly precludes the investment manager from voting proxies, the plan’s discretionary trustee has exclusive responsibility for voting proxies.
IB 2016-01 is clear that the investment policy statement for the plan should include a statement of the plan’s proxy voting policy. An IPS is a written statement that provides fiduciaries responsible for plan investments with guidelines or general instructions on investment management decisions.
For guidance on the individual or entity responsible for the voting of proxies for securities held in a 401(k) plan—turn to the governing plan documents. Proxy voting is a fiduciary responsibility. The authority for proxy voting should be addressed in the plan document and the procedure outlined in the plan’s IPS.
 A way for shareholders to vote on matters affecting a company without having to personally attend the meeting.
What is an 83(b) election?
A recent call with a financial advisor from California is representative of a common inquiry related to restricted stock awards.
An Internal Revenue Code Section (IRC §) 83(b) election is a tax tool relating to the transfer of property in connection with the performance of service. It provides an option to change the standard tax treatment of restricted stock grants and is typically used in start-up companies.
With restricted stock, employees are given shares or the right to purchase shares (sometimes at a reduced price), but they cannot take possession of the shares until they meet certain requirements (or the restrictions are lifted). Restrictions can include working for a set number of years, or meeting specified performance goals. The restrictions can phase out or cease immediately. While the employee holds the restricted stock, it may or may not provide dividends or voting rights.
There is some flexibility regarding taxation with restricted stock grants. Employees can choose whether to be taxed when the restrictions lapse or when the right is first granted. If taxation occurs when the restrictions lapse, employees will pay ordinary income tax on the difference between the current price and anything they may have paid for the shares.
Taxation upon grant for restricted stock may occur only if the individual files an IRC §83(b) election. In that case, he or she pays tax on the difference (if any) between the current price and the purchase price at ordinary income tax rates, and then pays capital gains tax when he or she actually sells the shares. Thus, the value of property with respect to which this election is made is included in gross income as of the time of transfer, even though such property is not yet vested at the time of transfer.
An 83(b) election carries some risk. If an employee makes an election and pays tax, but the restrictions never lapse, the employee does not get a refund of the taxes paid, nor does the employee get the shares.
In Revenue Procedure 2012-29, the IRS presents some sample language that would satisfy the IRS regulations for making an 83(b) election. In addition, the Revenue Procedure 2012-29 provides examples of the tax results that may occur as a result of an IRC § 83(b) election.
An 83(b) election is a tax tool. An individual who receives restricted stock awards will want to discuss with his or her tax advisor whether making an 83(b) election makes sense given the individual’s unique financial situation.
 Note that recipients of restricted stock units are not allowed to make IRC §83(b) elections.
https://retirementlc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/tax-1351881_1280.png 951 1280 jkiffmeyer https://retirementlc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/retirementlearninglogo.png jkiffmeyer2019-03-27 09:09:552019-03-27 09:09:55What is an 83(b) election?
How is it possible to make a $27,000 IRA contribution by April 15, 2019?
ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs, qualified retirement plans and other types of retirement savings and income plans, including nonqualified plans, stock options, and Social Security and Medicare. We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business. A recent call with a financial advisor from Massachusetts is representative of a common inquiry related to IRA contributions.
There is a window of opportunity from January 1 through April 15, 2019, for a married couple to be able to contribute up to $27,000 at one time to their IRAs. Sizeable contributions like this are possible each year during tax season because of the carry-back and current-year IRA contribution rules, combined with the catch-up contribution limits for those ages 50 or more.
Here’s how it breaks down. From January 1 to April 15, 2019, it is potentially possible for a traditional or Roth IRA owner age 50 and over to contribute $6,500 as a 2018 carry-back contribution, and $7,000 as a 2019 current year contribution, for a total of $13,500. That means a married couple filing a joint tax return could potentially make combined IRA contributions totaling $27,000, with $13,500 going to each spouse’s respective IRA.
For a traditional IRA contribution, was under age 70½. (Whether a couple’s traditional IRA contributions would be tax deductible depends upon the couple’s MAGI and participation in a retirement plan at work. Please see the applicable MAGI ranges below.
When making IRA contributions during the period between January 1 and April 15th of a given year, it is important for an investor to clearly designate to the IRA trustee or custodian for what year a contribution is being made (e.g., what portion represents a carry-back contribution for the preceding year and what portion represents a current-year contribution) in order to avoid having the full amount treated as a current-year contribution and, subsequently, an excess contribution.
Because of the carry-back and current-year IRA contribution rules, there is a window of opportunity through April 15th that allows eligible investors to double up, seemingly, on IRA contributions. Investors interested in maximizing their contributions in this way should consult their tax advisors regarding their particular circumstances.
 For eligible individuals under age 50, the maximum IRA contribution limit is $5,500 for 2018 and $6,000 for 2019.
https://retirementlc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/piggy-bank-1056615_640.jpg 360 640 RLCadmin https://retirementlc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/retirementlearninglogo.png RLCadmin2019-03-14 18:53:302019-03-15 10:24:17How is it possible to make a $27,000 IRA contribution by April 15, 2019?
ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs, qualified retirement plans and other types of retirement savings and income plans, including nonqualified plans, stock options, and Social Security and Medicare. We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business. A recent call with a financial advisor from Colorado is representative of a common inquiry related to plan reporting requirements.
Initially, the IRS did not provide any penalty relief for delinquent Form 5500-EZ filers. That changed with the IRS’s release of Revenue Procedure 2015-32, which made permanent a 2014 pilot program that allowed owner-only businesses to correct late Form 5500-EZ filings. Without the program, a plan sponsor faces late filing penalties of $25 per day, up to $15,000 for each late Form 5500-EZ, plus interest, and $1,000 for each late actuarial report (for a defined benefit plan, if needed).
The IRS’s Form 5500-EZ Later Filer program is separate from the Department of Labor’s Voluntary Fiduciary Correction Program (VFCP), which is available to late filers of Forms 5500, Annual Return/Report of Employee Benefit Plan. Form 5500-EZ filers do not qualify for the VFCP.
Mails the returns to the following address (Note: Electronically filed delinquent returns are not eligible for penalty relief).
1973 North Rulon White Blvd.
Some owner-only businesses with qualified retirement plans must file an annual Form 5500-EZ. If they fail to do so when required, IRS penalties could result. Since 2015 there has been a permanent penalty relief program for Form 5500-EZ late filers to follow in Revenue Procedure 2015-32.
ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs, qualified retirement plans and other types of retirement savings and income plans, including nonqualified plans, stock options, and Social Security and Medicare. We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business. A recent call with a financial advisor from New Jersey is representative of a common inquiry related to selecting plan investments.
Plan fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) should be aware of the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) stance and guidance on ETI. First, let’s wrap our heads around what ETI is, and the many names by which it is known.
ETI is a type of investment behavior where an individual or plan committee considers the economic, social and/or corporate governance benefits of an investment, in addition to its propensity for favorable returns, when making investing decisions. Other common names for this behavior include socially responsible investing, sustainable and responsible investing, environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing, green investing and impact investing.
Over the past 35 years, various members of the financial industry have asked the DOL to opine on the use of ESG investments within qualified retirement plans given the constraints of ERISA. ERISA requires plan fiduciaries to make decisions with respect to their plans that are in the best interests of the participants and beneficiaries, with their decisions being held to an expert standard. Selecting and monitoring plan investments is well within this purview.
What about a plan’s investment policy statement (IPS), the written document that provides fiduciaries with general instructions for making investment management decisions? If ESG investing is an objective of the plan, then the DOL deems it appropriate for a plan’s IPS to reference the process and criteria for inclusion of such investments. Moreover, prudence dictates plan fiduciaries maintain records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with ERISA’s evaluation requirements and IPS guidelines.
All things being equal, plan fiduciaries can consider an investment’s ESG criteria as part of an ETI objective as long as the investment otherwise meets ERISA’s best interest and prudent expert standards.
ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs, qualified retirement plans and other types of retirement savings and income plans, including nonqualified plans, stock options, and Social Security and Medicare. We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business. A recent call with a financial advisor from Connecticut is representative of a common inquiry related to contribution limits.
The IRC § 402(g) annual limit on employee salary deferrals is an individual taxpayer limit—not a per plan limit. Consequently, an individual under age 50 for 2018 was limited to deferring 100 percent of compensation up to a maximum of $18,500 (or $24,500 if age 50 or more)—regardless of the number of plans in which he or she participated during the year. For 2019, the respective limits are $19,000 and $25,000.
Salary reduction simplified employee pension (SARSEP) plans.
If a taxpayer exceeds the annual limit—the result is an excess deferral that must be timely corrected. The IRS could disqualify a plan for violating the elective deferral limitation, resulting in adverse tax consequences to the employer and employees under the plan. But there are ways to correct the error. It is important to follow the correction procedures contained in the governing plan document.
Generally, if a participant has excess deferrals based on the elective deferrals made to a single 401(k) plan or plans maintained by the same employer, then the plan must return the excess deferrals and their earnings to the participant no later than April 15th of the year following the year the excess was created [Treas. Reg. § 1.402(g)-1(e)(1)].
In the case of an employee who participates in more than one salary deferral-type plan of unrelated employers, it may be difficult for the plan sponsor to recognize there is an excess deferral. Therefore, the onus is on the participant to notify the plan administrator of the amount of excess deferrals allocated to the plan prior to the April 15th correction deadline (usually a notification date is specified in the plan).
 The 2018 limit for deferrals to a SIMPLE IRA or 401(k) plan is $12,500 ($15,500 if age 50 or more).
 The 2018 limit for deferrals to a SARSEP plan is 25% of compensation up to $18,500 ($24,500 if age 50 or more).
document). The plan is then required to distribute the excess and earnings to the participant no later than the April 15th correction deadline [Treas. Reg. § 1.402(g)-1(e)(2)].
There is no 20% withholding (since the amounts are ineligible for rollover).
The excess deferrals could also be subject to the 10% early distribution penalty tax if no exception applies.
Joe, a 45-year old worker, made his full salary deferral contribution of $18,500 to Company A’s 401(k) plan by October 2018. He then left Company A to go to work for Company B, an unaffiliated company, on November 1, 2018, and was immediately allowed to participate in the 401(k) plan. Not understanding how the 402(g) limit works, he begins making salary deferral contributions to Company B’s 401(k) plan. In December his financial advisor informed him that may have over contributed for 2018.
The onus is on Joe to report the excess salary deferrals to Company B. Company B is then required to distribute the excess deferrals and earnings by April 15, 2019. The plan document also requires forfeiture of any matching contributions associated with the excess deferral.
Although the annual IRC §402(g) employee salary deferral limit is an individual employee limit, exceeding it can have consequences for both the employee and the plan sponsor. Timely correction of the excess is key to minimizing possible negative effects. Plan sponsors should review the correction procedures outlined in their plan documents, and follow them carefully should they detect or be informed of an excess deferral. Also rely on the IRS’s EPCRS corrections program.

References: §1
 §1
 §83
 § 83
 §83
 § 402
 § 1
 § 1
 §402