Leaderboard

I remember Sal saying in a seminar that as long as you terminate before the restatement deadline and you complete the distributions within a year you are not required to restate. (Advisability aside.)

Absolutely. We have had some DB clients stop their plan terminations at various stages for various reasons - market losses, annuity costs. We've also had plans that were frozen for a few years decide to unfreeze, so that happens as well. Have never seen a plan freeze in anticipation of termination and then halt the termination and unfreeze - but there is no prohibition against it.

There is a difference between required and advisable. Unless the plan is ongoing beyond the end of the RAP 4/30/2020, there is no requirement to restate. However, because you need to ensure the plan is up to date regardless, it may be advisable to restate although that is still no guarantee depending on any interim legislative changes. We've been lucky that they've been extremely minimal during this DB cycle.

It has been a very long time since I did participant loan work but this was the catch back then. Many payroll systems it seems like the employer just tells the system how many payments of $x to take and unless someone shuts it off early in the case of prepayments being made too much is taken from someone's checks and goes into the 4k plan by mistake. I agree it is a pain but based on what you have shared I am not seeing the ability to say "no". Maybe someone more current on loans can give you ideas.

Based on that language an extra $20 a week does not sound unreasonable to me.

You might even want to check the note to see how pre-payments (if allowed) are handled. You would think it would simply shorten the amortization but there are about as many different ways to handle a pre-payment as there are people writing loan notes.

ASG is very fact-intensive and there are no longer any regs, even proposed, so hard to opine. You also need to know family and business relationships for stock attribution. Having said that, it seems to me that, depending on additional facts, Firm 1 could be performing historical employee services for 2 and 3, and the owners of 1 or HCEs of 2 and 3. 1 and 2 would be one m2b, 1 and 3 the other, and you might have a "combined group." But again, this is just a hypothetical analysis of a hypothetical situation, Would need more facts. The Code section is in effect, but again no regs. Good luck, Below Ground.