Leaderboard

Nope. And there may be issues with a 412(d)(2) amendment as well. If you have an hour, Kevin Donovan did an "Actuarial Grab Bag" webcast a few weeks ago that covers these and other issues and goes through some creative solutions. I highly recommend it. It's on ASPPA's web site.

That's correct. Corrective distributions to correct 415, 402(g), or ADP/ACP failures cannot be qualified distributions. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-faqs-on-designated-roth-accounts

While Datair provides great support to us, I have to admit I am disappointed in the document effort. Each day that goes by makes me consider moving our business to another vendor.

Retirement plan contributions are eligible for PPP forgiveness, but this is 100% a question for his CPA. If CPA cant answer or is passing the buck, it is time for a new CPA.

Retirement plan contributions are includible in "payroll costs" under PPP forgiveness, need to follow all the PPP guidance from SBA and Treasury. The "reimburse" comment makes no sense. The PPP proceeds should have been paid to the PC, so the PC already has them.

If you have an excess deferral in 2020 and issue the corrective refund after December 31, 2020 but prior to April 15, 2021 you would issue a 2021 Form 1099-R in January of 2022 with code P, indicating that the it is taxable income in 2020.

I've got a better solution for this. Click on your username at the top, or on mobile, open the menu and go to Account. Then go to Account Settings. Go to Content View Behavior and choose Take me to comments I haven't read, and Save. Seems to be working for me on both desktop and mobile.

If the husband and wife are W-2 employees then the 401(k) contributions need to be run through payroll and be reflected on the W-2s. If they are self-employed partners they would deduct their own 401(k) contribution on the 1040.

We routinely receive separation agreements in lieu of a DRO - and put it through the same process as a DRO. Some (very few) actually meet the criteria for it to be a "Q"DRO. Start with, was the Separation Agreement incorporated into an order of the court? If not, sorry, it's not an "O"rder even making it a DR"O" and that is a big part of the problem we find with these things. Other issues may also prevent if from being a DRO. One has to look at it in it's entirety (including reading who gets the Weber grill and custody of Scruffy the pet dog....) 😁

IRC 401(a)(11). In order for a 401(k) plan to be exempt from the qualified joint & survivor annuity rules, the participant's spouse must be their 100% beneficiary, unless waived.

My understanding is that because it's a inherited IRA where the original owner as her brother-in-law, she cannot treat the IRA as her own and would have to continue the payments as is and cannot recalculate the payments.

You say this happened due to purchases and you just found out about the other plan, so I assume you hopefully have time under the transition rules to be able to get this sorted out. Plan R has a large contingent of "per diem" class of employees - those called in to work on a day to day basis. I would do a deeper dig on that population with respect to hours history. If that much of their population is in this class, it might be that the majority have never worked more than 1000 hours in a year and may be statutorily excluded. If this group predominantly works 1000+ hours per year, then this classification itself may be problematic and was a smokescreen attempt to exclude part-time employees. Even if not the previous intent, it's like salaried employees are in, hourly employees are out, and that is just fine until you fail coverage because hourlies far out number salaried. If you can't find enough statutory exclusions amongst the per diem (we just need 11,780 votes, er, exclusions) then I would run average benefits as the next step and progress from there.

There's nothing that says MEPs have to be huge plans. You can have tiny MEPs - we have several in our office. The basic things you need to know about a MEP are: Coverage, non-discrimination and top heavy are done as if they were separate plans Service is combined for eligibility and vesting On the 5500-SF, check the box for multiple employer plan and see the instructions for the required attachment

I agree with other posters - this is not that difficult. We are a tiny shop with tiny clients and have done it. I don't think I would create two separate plans and then try to cram them into one "plan" at the recordkeeper.

QSLOB also has a minimum 50 employee requirement for each QSLOB. If the purchase was recent, use the transition rule under IRC section 410(b)(6)(C) - also check the plan documents. Also, with no HCEs, why provide safe harbor? Your minimum safe harbor percentage will probably be fairly low - based on the high concentration percent you likely have of NHCEs overall - have you tried running the average benefit percent test, assuming your document allows? if none of the above can produce a passing result, you can give employer N an amendment under treasury regulation 1.401(a)(4)-11(g) to provide QNECs and QMACs to enough wisely chosen NHCEs from either N or R to make it pass. But run The average benefits test first and if you have enough NHCEs that are benefiting and younger than the HCEs, perhaps run it on a benefits-basis rather than on a contributions basis.

Besides calling in an ERISA attorney to help with the VCP? Well, here is the direction I would go. As you indicate make the plans the same, whether that is safe harbor or not. The NHCE benefitting percentage should well exceed the safe harobr percentage (20.75% it looks like), so your target is passing the ABT. Assuming your HCE's aren't significantly older than the average age of the NHCE's you will need to goose the NHCE percentage. This calls for a bottom up QNEC (remember the 5% limitation). Another thought: what about excluding the two HCE's, wouldn't that fix the future?

This is a pretty common situation, and Lou's advice is usually the simplest approach for a small add-on entity like this. Yeah, technically it's a MEP, but it's not much of a MEP and not a big deal to administer. The biggest challenge I've run into with 4k plan recordkeepers is handling two different payroll sources, they don't like to do that. Using a common paymaster is one way to address it, and depending how your owner/client is being paid from each entity, potential payroll tax savings is possible. They should discuss the common paymaster with their CPA if they want to look into it, there are ownership requirements (I think 50% but been years since I dealt with this).

Look into the rules for Multiple Employer Plans and consider having Company B be an adopting employer of Company A's Plan.

Yes, by law, the spouse at the time of death must be sole primary beneficiary. Plan can require that they be married for a year before that kicks in, so check the document language, although you look to be past that regardless. This is, of course, subject to any QDRO wife #1 may file.

Apply the vesting to the correction. 60% of the correction plus allocable income is refunded as excess aggregate contribution and 40% of the correction plus allocable income is forfeited to the Plan.

Are the plans part of a required aggregation group? (The answer is yes if both plans cover any Key employees, which they probably do. It's also yes if they are being tested together for 401(a)(4) which it appears they are.) I agree with your conclusion. If an employee was eligible to defer but has not met eligibility for the DB plan then they need the 3% DC top heavy minimum, and if they have not met statutory eligibility then they can be disaggregated on the general test and so would not need to receive the gateway.