Leaderboard

Well, this might be one where it is worth asking to speak to the agent's supervisor and have a discussion. Many years ago we had a professional tennis start (name would be known to everyone) and we used an NRA of (as I remember) 35 back when there were NOT the actuarial adjustments for early dates. We got it approved with little trouble after a discussion with higher ups at IRS. If it is really obvious (like a football player or a basketball player) and your age is not obviously unreasonable (like, age 25), then you might be surprised that a conversation with a manager might be an easy solution. And that's because they have probably dealt with the issue before. There are lots of new agents who are just following what it says in "the book" and are not using their heads at all; meanwhile, managers want to get plans OFF their desks (or the desks of their agents) because that is how they are measured. It's worth a shot.

I'd hold as long as an interim val is done, it 'indirectly' effects the other participants depending on if this requires an asset reallocation. they don't have 44% less. they never had that portion of the pooled assets. but if there has been a significant drop in value due to stock market you have to do an interim val. a better extreme example that what was given, let's say the person had a balance of 900,000 and assets were 1,000,000 at 1/1. today the assets are worth only 850,000. does the company have to kick in another 50,000 so the person can be paid because he terminated? no you would interim val and prorate the assets. but after all is said and done the other participants still have the same % as they did before(when you take into consideration you are excluding the person distributed.

I respectfully disagree if I'm understanding what you are saying - the fact that the plan PERMITS it doesn't necessarily mean it is ok. IMHO, it would be a gross breach of Fiduciary duty to allow full distribution of a 12/31/17 account value if there has been a big loss in a pooled account plan. To illustrate by way of an absurd example, suppose 12/31/17 total plan assets are 1 million. The share attributable to the owner/Highly Comp/probably Fiduciary is $400,000. Current total asset value due to big losses is $420,000. Do you think it is ok to give the Honcho a $400,000 distribution? I don't.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SOLO 401(K) PLAN. Now for the statement that will floor many of you: there is also NO SUCH THING AS A 401(K) PLAN. All 401(k) plans are simply profit sharing plans (by law) that have a feature called a Cash or Deferred Option. Guess where you find the CODA in the Internal Revenue Code? Give yourself a pat on the head if you guessed IRC Section 401(k)! The "solo 401(k)" is a marketing gimmick; usually with a disabled plan document that has the wrong provisions in it and will immediately blow up if the client actually hires someone. Of course, the client thinks that employee isn't eligible because.. .wait for it.. "IT'S A SOLO 401(K) so only I am in it!" You don't amend a profit sharing plan into a 401(k) plan; you amend the profit sharing to ADD a 401(k) feature (a CODA). OK; off the soapbox......

And, there is NO difference with regard to the protection because there is no such thing as a "solo 401(k) plan". It is a marketing gimmick; I dare you to find it in the code. It is simply a 401(k) plan that does not have (YET) any rank in file employees. The shame of it is that those entities that market these with "bare bone documents" have no clue what happens when the employer actually does hire someone and they have to become eligible but the deficient plan document no longer works and just screws up the client.

The child is 100% owner of both businesses if they both own businesses. Good Luck!