Leaderboard

Sorry; this is a perfect example of the confusion and flat-out wrong-ness of the term. You are describing a 401(k) plan that happens to only have an owner(s) (and spouse) in it. It may have been sold as a "solo" but it does not preclude participation of others, and the minute you have another participant, reporting requirements change as do other things, such as bankruptcy protection. But it's the same plan. Again, a plan may have been sold as a "solo" but it is a regular plan and if others enter there are regular reporting requirements...and a not minor point, a "one-man" plan (which is a term the IRS has used although it could cover multiple owners and/or spouses) does indeed have reporting requirements, if/when assets are over $250K and in the year of termination, regardless of assets. Why?

Wouldn't that be nice. We have seen two letters come back so far showing the tax period as 2/28/19 (for CALENDAR YEAR plans) and granting extension until 12/15. What's going on with the iRS anyway?

True that this is a high pressure sales tactic but False that it's a legal requirement.

I don't think you're going to find a specific cite, but the limit is a limit on compensation. The bonus isn't compensation, according to the plan. So you wouldn't limit comp and then reduce comp. Because of this, the 414(s) test gets harder to pass. Since you aren't actually impacting this HCE, the exclusion doesn't apply. If it's the only HCE and the staff have any bonuses excluded, you're very likely to fail that test. I hate compensation exclusions for this reason.

We finally got our hardship approved!! I don’t think we would have had it not been for all your suggestions and getting HR involved on a corporate level. Thank you all so much! You all truly helped me get this done and I’m thankful from the bottom of my heart!

Lou S gave you the right answer. But if they are taking RMDs, they are obviously over the NRA. Most plans have (or should have) a provision that allows "in service distributions" to those who are working past NRA. If it was important, this participant could take a full distribution, and roll it over to an IRA (after taking the RMD for the current year). Then, most of his RMD will come from his IRA (where, if there are more than one, he CAN aggregate). Of course, if there are ongoing contributions to the plan, he will still have little RMDs that will be required based on the new money going into the plan.

I don't do cryptically. Or do I?