Leaderboard

Assuming there's no predecessor plan, you might exclude years prior to the existence of the plan for vesting purposes. Though the terminated participants might get 2020 allocations (and you might want them to, depending on demographics), they would be 0% vested.

I could be wrong but I never saw the 5500 and the 8955-SSA as linked (you are describing "a return that requires an 8955-SSA"). I would put the participants who weren't reported on a current 8955 and move on. Just think about it a little bit, and if you don't get it, keep thinking.

The advisor would need to be an RIA and appointed as an investment manager for that participant's account.

B(iii) at best implies it cannot be done. And D.4 is just regarding the match. Like I said I agree compeltely that it would reduce the safe harbor. I'm just a little floored that they don't say "(including an amendment to the definition of compensation that reduces the amount of compensation that would receive the Safe Harbor)" or something like that. I don;t think it's SO obvious that it's not even worth stating anywhere. Why leave it just implied instead of outright saying it?

The non elective version, of course. Here's a good article by Groom: https://www.groom.com/resources/irs-guidance-on-secure-act-changes-to-safe-harbor-plans/

Understood, Luke, but conflicts of interest abound in our world, some people abuse this, most don't. Maybe a third-party appraisal "should be" required. But who does this requiring? The IRS requires FMV, but they don't require a third party appraisal. And it's clearly not the role of a TPA to require anything. A TPA could say "get a third party appraisal or we will resign from providing services", but that's about it. Our job is to advise the client what is required and the consequences of failing to follow the rules. Sometimes the consequences are significant (plan disqualification, loss of rollover, potential tax penalties), and sometimes the consequences are virtually none. If a client has an owner-only or self-directed account DC plan and is rolling over a hard-to-value asset to an IRA or another self-directed retirement plan, there really aren't any consequences if the valuation is off somewhat. And for such assets, FMV is not really a single number carried out to two decimal places. It's an educated estimate of what the price might be given a willing buyer, a willing seller and current market conditions for an asset with a particular set of characteristics such as risk, return, liquidity, and duration.

I agree with both prior comments - "special termination program benefits" can be significant, or as David said - they might be nothing, but you should not simply give them away without knowing more.

David is correct and you should talk to a QDRO attorney to be sure, but company bankruptcy is a completely different issue than retirement plan termination. Assuming this is a qualified plan then there would be a pension trust not subject to company creditors and therefore the plan may still be in existence. In CA there is case law regarding pension enhancements such as a plan incentive to retire early (something not written into the plan document) or a plan early retirement subsidy which is written in the plan document. Just a thought and recommend you seek out a QDRO attorney for assistance.

Section 707(c) of the Code and the Treasury Regulations treat these guaranteed payments as self-employment income to the partner and allow the partnership to take a Section 162 deduction for ordinary and necessary business expenses. Whether or not the payments are financed by debt of paid from partnership capital does not change their characterization. They are still first priority payments guaranteed to the partner for services rendered.

Luke - maybe a matter of semantics, but I read C.B.'s statement as meaning that "guaranteed payments" - in and of themselves, are not the measuring compensation. Rather I understood him (her? Can't tell gender from initials) to be saying that you use net earned income - which is correct. The guaranteed payments are generally (but not always) used when arriving at earned income. So I suspect we are all agreeing, albeit stating it a little differently.

It can't be done under Notice 2016-16 because the change in compensation would reduce the safe harbor contributions. See Section B(iii) of the Notice. See also Section D.4 of the Notice that fairly clearly implies that a reduction in the compensation definition is covered by that prohibition. So it can only be done mid-year to the extent the regulations permit it.

Depends on how the plan defines compensation for purposes of ADP/ACP testing. For testing purposes, the 1.401(k)-1(g)(2) Treasury Regulations allow (but do not require) the plan to exclude compensation for the part of the year that the employee is not eligible to participate. Look to the plan document.

Right.

Luke and In-House Attorney, I see that I completely misunderstood In-House's second question. Yes, you can do the spin-off but just remember that the remaining employees cannot take a distribution from the spun-off plan on account of plan termination.

I agree with Former Esq's first comment, but not fully with second. First, query why this was done this way. If the target had adopted resolutions unadopting the plan, then the acquisition would have pulled that company and its employees out of the controlled group that sponsored the plan, and so the employees would have been former employees entitled to distributions. Same consequence that target company employees get distributions (and they could have been fully vested by amendment prior to closing, if that was an issue), without the remaining two companies having to deal with this. If the plan is terminated as to the remaining 2 companies as well, then you will probably have to distribute to them and won't be able to have a new 401(k) for a year before starting new from scratch, as explained by Former Esq. It depends on timing and to-date paperwork, but if you can't stop the termination you might be able to spin off the portion of the plan for the 2 remaining companies into a new 401(k), without offering the employees of the two remaining companies distributions. Again, depends on plan provisions, what the existing resolutions say, what comms with employees have been, etc.

I found this website, and I have to say, it's dumbed down just enough for me http://blog.acgworldwide.com/ebars-the-first-step-in-cross-testing

Plan numbers are used and connected to the EIN of the sponsor of the plan. Ultimate parent, etc isn't relevant.

IMHO, no you should not agree to that condition. Why? because it might only be theoretical (nothing wrong with that), or it might mean there is a future possibility of a "retirement incentive" to him, a portion of which might apply to you. Since such incentives can take many forms, it's likely impossible to know today whether it really applies to your portion of the benefit later. By signing that generic waiver, you would (probably) lose even the possibility of some portion of a future incentive. I am not a lawyer; you should definitely make sure this issue is reviewed by a legal advisor who is familiar with QDROs. BTW, your statement "...QDRO was replaced with a different benefit plan" is ambiguous. Company bankruptcy does not necessarily alter the Plan, so you should have clear documentation of what happened and how it affects you. In writing.

If you are over age 59-1/2, the 10% penalty for early withdrawal does not apply. If you meet the definition of a qualified individual under the CARES Act, you can waive the 10% penalty tax (if applicable), plus you can spread the income over 3 years for federal income tax purposes of up to $100,000 of your distribution.