Leaderboard

Ask the client to run the payroll on 9/30 instead of 10/1?

I assume (maybe incorrectly) since the title of the thread is "controlled group" that it is really an affiliated service group partnership of professional corporations. So each doc has a separate 100% owned PC. So the doc is an HCE due to ownership of the PC stock. Assuming the PC is a partner in the group it's an ASG. OTOH, if the doc has a separate PC and neither the doc nor the PC has ownership in the group, it wouldn't be an ASG or CG. If all the docs are directly employed by the group then you are right the doc is not HCE unless also a 5% owner. To channel Larry Starr, we can't really answer properly without complete facts.

Sometime the easiest solution is the best solution. Thanks Lou.

I am sorry I am not answering your question.... I just have to know who likes this idea as a benefit that is a "trending" benefit? Am I understanding how this works correctly? Say we have employee A and employee B. They both do the same job and get paid exactly the same in terms of salary and benefits except for this program. A has a pet they board and B doesn't. So A's W-2 will reflect a higher gross and taxable wages because of the reimbursement of the pet boarding? If so, that means a person's total compensation is based on a personal choice to own and board a pet and not work place actions, is that correct? Like I said I am not answering your question at all so if you want to ignore me as I am being way off topic there will be no hurt feelings on my part. This board collectively can hijack a topic and I am as guilty as the next person. I am however curious about my questions enough to write them.

Had a client audit a few years back that was a target audit (SH 401k plans) and they have groups as opposed to individual groups and auditor did ask for the documentation for authorizing the allocation amounts for each group. Now here is where it gets weird - this was large medical practice that also had a cash balance plan aggregated with the SH/PS cross-tested for nondiscrimination. Since this was a limited scope/target audit, the IRS agent didn't want to have to deal with the combined testing and running it past his actuary, so he asked me to show him the cross-testing for the SH/PS portion alone, which I was happy to provide and of course passed with ridiculously high percentages.

What rbg said.

Oh yeah and as M Weddell points out your plan already has to allow for the after tax contributions, you can just do it only for failed ADP test, though as a practical matter in a small plan those might wind up being the only ones actually made. But like I said then you probably have the same problems on the ACP side.