Leaderboard

Bill channeling his inner @Mike Preston 😀

If none of the assets are participant directed? Yes.

No.

Correct. I've not seen anything that hints at it having any different characteristics.

I'm pretty sure you would use the SF. It's all about the year beginning, right? I don't think you'd have the option to file a 2019 EZ electronically if you tried that.

FWIW - 2019 5500-SF one man was accepted by EFAST with acknowledgment file in case anyone else runs into this situation. Thanks Bird.

Isn't the age 72 after 2021?

What does the plan document say? Typically it will say the normal form of benefit for an unmarried participant is a life annuity. For married participants there will be QJSA options with the spouse (subsidized or not), maybe a lump sum, maybe installments, and RMD provisions. The participant cannot elect what the plan does not offer.

I doubt a 2013 document would be a true volume submitter for an ESOP. It has only been with in the last 12 to 18 months I have seen those that are fully operational with all the needed approvals. Does it look like this is a full document? They might have been working on draft volume submitter as the IRS has been talking for a long time of getting ESOPs to that point. But in the end they just used that base to make it a custom document maybe????

ESOPs were not always part of and eligible for the pre-approved/volume submitter document program. I think it was just the prior cycle for which that was available. That means the plan was individually designed by definition - regardless of the document platform that was used (like cash balance plans years back). Like cash balance plans, or any plan for that matter, the ESOP was not required to be put on a pre-approved document. You can always remain individually designed, in which case you need not and can not submit an updated document for a determination letter, except for an initial determination, plan termination or other special circumstances defined by the Secretary. However, individually designed plans are still required to be amended timely for changes in the law and periodically restated after a certain number of amendments - you need not restate every 6 years as with pre-approved documents. Look at the existing document, it's determination letter and the prior 5-year cycle under which this came. It might be a cycle B or C plan for which a 2013 restatement would be appropriate - BUT, they should also then have any and all required interim amendments for ESOPs, adopted timely (which is, as you know, one of the primary advantages of using a pre-approved document). So even if the intent was adopt a new pre-approved document as evidenced by a resolution, the lack thereof may not be a compliance issue. Updated SPDs are also a periodic requirement and may not necessarily mean a restatement was prepared. Hope this was helpful and good luck.

Find yourself a lawyer well-versed in QDROs. NOT the financial guy. There are a lot of moving parts to a DRO regarding a pension plan.

What happened to the old days when Larry S. and Mike P. would have responded in detail within minutes?

Still not clear if s-corp or partnership, big difference.

I don't think so. Any PS-58 costs paid should be recoverable as basis somewhere/somehow.

Is this a combo of distribution (presumably of the cum PS-58s) and purchase of the balance? I'm not sure...might lean towards using the total.

The safe harbor non-elective has to be for a 12 month period to qualify as a safe harbor contribution but you can limit new entrants to comp from date of entry if the document allows. You sated you have no new entrants to the plan after 1/1 so my reading would be 12 months of comp for the safe harbor non-elective.

Contributions to a profit sharing plan have to be "substantial and recurring." A 401(k) plan is a profit sharing plan, but a MPP is not, which is presumably why shERPA recommended it.