Leaderboard

"Q2: Also, wouldn't depositing it now for 2018 PY count towards the 2019 Annual Additions LY for each participant who shares in the allocation of it because outside the 30 day window? If so, one participant terminated in 2018 therefore 2019 Annual Addition limit is zero for him - is there any correction available for this? The other staff member terminated at end Q1 2019... may be okay with 2019 Annual Addition limit. Will this ultimately make it impossible for the employer to contribute any PS for 2018 because of this Annual Addition issue, limiting the employer to only the SH for 2018?" The "30 day" rule doesn't always apply. For the terminated participant, see 1.415(c)(1)(b)(6)(ii)(A) - I think this will cover you on that piece.

Before you go too crazy with the mid-year stuff, find out what the client wants to do. It's common - almost the rule in what I've seen - for the client to be happy, or at least content, with keeping the plan open through the end of the year and making contributions for the whole year as required/desired. Obviously (?) any employees will have reduced pay if they are term'd, and he might have receivables coming in that make a final year contribution attractive.

It's a little hard to follow but here are some thoughts - I don't believe EPCRS can fix a deduction issue. It sounds like the return is wrong if they used $41K as cash basis contributions but it included deferrals. It appears that the over-deduction is $30K ($41K deducted minus $11K deposited.) The safe harbor status is fine as long as the remaining deposit is made by 12/31. There is a known problem with allowing SH contributions by 12/31, but Annual Additions counting towards the current year if made after the 30 day window. I think making the SH contribution is more important and would make it regardless of the apparent 415 violation in 2019. I think you need to talk to the client and accountant and reach a joint decision on what to do for the un-made PS contributions. My guess is that nobody wants to re-file and claim extra income, so the path of least resistance is probably to re-do the contributions to match the $41K deduction...and cross your fingers. Make it clear that it is their decision.

That's a little extreme, no? I think it is sufficient to "install procedures" to make sure it doesn't happen again. If we were to take everyone off of any plan responsibility every time they failed to do something, there wouldn't be anyone left. That's a really good point. I agree that it would look bad if the new funds underperformed the old, but short term performance shouldn't be the criteria for determining whether a decision was good or bad. (And yet, that's what drives a lot of what passes for "expert" analysis.)

Yes. No. Yes.

Assuming it was an eligible rollover distribution (e.g., not a hardship distribution), yes, it can be rolled within 60 days of the date of distribution. The P will have to find another $40,000 somewhere else if he/she wishes to avoid tax on that amount.

Even prior to the new Rev Proc, my understanding was that late loan payments could be caught up (with any extra interest if needed) as long as it was still within the cure period. I don't believe that has changed.

I think Lou is correct. Failure to be employed on the last day is not a permitted exclusion under 411 for a DB plan.