Leaderboard

Sometimes you have to read between the lines, but the answer will be there somewhere. Start with the DB plan - it has to say somewhere to which plan the top heavy contributions will be made. If it says to the DB plan then you are stuck with the 2% accrual. If it says to the DC plan, then you have to go and look at what the DC plan says. If the DC plan allows for top heavy minimum contributions to be made on behalf of the employer's DB plan, then go ahead and make the 5% to the DC plan. If the DC plan doesn't acknowledge the DB plan for top heavy minimums, but it doesn't have a last day allocation condition for profit sharing, then you can still make the 5% to the DC plan, just call if profit sharing. If the DC plan does have a last day condition, then you will probably need to do an -11(g) corrective amendment to waive the last day condition for those employee(s) entitled to the top heavy minimum.

Since the plan is terminating, the participant will have a Qualifed Plan Loan Offset. They will have up to the due date of their tax return (plus extensions) roll the loan amount. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/06/2020-27151/rollover-rules-for-qualified-plan-loan-offset-amounts. You are correct, the particpant will receive a 1099R for the regular rollover and another one for the QPLO, reflecting that the loan qualifies for the QPLO rules.

I would suggest even though someone becomes a participant on the day they satisfy the eligibility requirements, their actual entry date is the first pay date after that.

My understanding is that the document vendors (e.g., Relius, ftwilliam) will not contract directly with a plan sponsor. They contract with retirement professionals who then provide document services to their plan sponsor clients. I'm not sure exactly how the vendors define a "retirement professional," but it's not exclusively attorneys. I would describe their business model as being a "wholesaler" to the "retailer" retirement community. Under this model, the vendors' clients are exclusively those who understand how to use the docs they license. In turn, the "retailers" get to contract with (and manage docs for) plan sponsor clients (and bear the risks that habits like speed reading could present....).

16a - yes 16b - $300,000 17a - yes 17b - no 17c1 - enter adoption date of the plan if provision has always been there 17c2 - enter effective date of the plan This is all the same regardless of whether or not the excess will be transferred to a QRP.

CARES Act non cash bonus? Never heard of this, Googled and all that came up was charitable donation stuff. Further explanation please.

He should also make sure his child is performing service for the business that is commensurate with the pay he is provided.

Personal opinion, others may disagree - but to include in ADP the person must be eligible to make a salary deferral for the year. Yes, technically the person may have entered the plan but since they were not eligible to defer any pay for the year I would exclude from testing. Re 5500, I would treat the same to be consistent, but it probably doesn't matter unless it's the difference between 120 and 121 total participants. Also personal opinion, this is poor design. Immediate eligibility is fine, but knowing payroll is once a month on the first, why not make plan entry date the first of the month coincident with or next following date of hire? Administratively the same but avoids the confusion of your situation. And double check the document that it's not already like that - you mention no eligibility requirements but eligibility and entry are separate, albeit related, concepts.

Read where? "Solo K" is not a team that's defined in any of the law or regulations. It's just a marketing name. There is such a thing as a "one-participant plan" which means they are eligible to file Form 5500-EZ. A one-participant plan includes a plan that covers only a sole proprietor and their spouse, partners in a partnership and their spouses, and (new starting in 2020) 2% shareholders in an S-corporation and their spouses, children, parents and grandparents. Any plan adopted by an employer which has no non-highly compensated employees will be exempt from most testing, which is the real benefit of a "Solo K" plan anyway. So go ahead and adopt a regular 401(k) plan and don't worry about it.

That sounds a lot like a cash or deferred arrangement to me, although I guess they don't get cash if they don't get a plan contribution, at least not directly. But basically these employees get to decide whether to get a contribution or not. I'd do it another way...like amend it to a profit sharing plan. We haven't used MP plans for maybe 20 years.

Thank you! One of the terminating plan that I'm assisting one participants has a balance of $400,100.00 and an outstanding loan of $39,000 all participants are expected to move they funds out by April. The participant likes to offset this loan amount, and roll it into an IRA. Will I be right in saying the actual rollover amount will be $400,100.00 however the total distribution shown will be $439100 including the loan offset amount and the participant has time until 60 days from the date of distribution to rollover the $39000 loan off set amount from his pocket? I believe the participant will be receiving two 1099-R one for the distribution "G" and one for the loan off set amount "M" or "M7" depending on the age. Correct?

The loan itself cannot be rolled to an IRA as IRAs are not allowed to issue or hold loans. The outstanding balance of loan can be rolled to an IRA if it is a qualified plan loan offset (QPLO). If it is a QPLO the participant has until the due date of their tax return with for the year of the QPLO occurred to roll the funds to an IRA. They would however have to come up with the funds.

They cannot roll over the 401(k) loan itself as IRAs cannot extend loans, but they may be able to roll over (by contributing their own cash to the IRA) the loan "offset" amount to an IRA along with the rest of their 401(k) distribution. If you Google "plan loan offset rollover" there's plenty of good information.

I was getting that warning - not actually an error - and it was more of a suggestion (unwanted!) that an EZ might be appropriate. Their support is superb and I am genuinely surprised - shocked - that an actual person would give that response; I'd guess they didn't understand the circumstances or you misunderstood their response.

I think it is against the law also. I would think this would violate the substantial determent rule in 1.411(a)11(c)(2)(i) https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.411(a)-11 I would think this would violate some kind of fiduciary obligation to act in the best interest of all participants. I don't think the fiduciary rules would allow for you to discriminate in favor of the current employee over the terminated participants.

Agree with Bill. I would cite DOL reg 2510.3-3(c)(1) which says "An individual and his or her spouse shall not be deemed to be employees" - it says nothing about their children.