Leaderboard

Code 3H is how you indicate a controlled group, similar to how you put 2J for the 401(k) arrangement. And a controlled group is still a single-employer plan, indeed. You may want both of your entities to adopt the plan, though, if they haven't already. Fidelity should have a supplemental page to list adopting employers. I suppose it's your choice which you wish to have be the primary.

I agree with everyone else. We don't get an EIN if the plan is on a recordkeeping platform, otherwise we get one and use it to open the accounts and do distribution reporting.

I don't think there is specific guidance as this probably wasn't contemplated. But I don't see anything preventing it.

Point them to the section of the plan document that says distributions will commence by the participant's required beginning date, even without the participant's consent.

An RMD can be distributed without the participant's consent. However the participant must be given the opportunity to waive the 10% federal income tax withholding. As a matter of prudence, the plan administrator might want to get the participant to complete a form, if only to ensure that the payment information is correct. If the participant in question is the plan administrator, then this step might be redundant.

If they bought the stock they bought the history. HCEs of ABC in 2021 will be HCEs of XYZ after the purchase. 5+% owners of ABC in 2021 will be HCE's of XYZ in 2022. Employees that have compensation over the HCE comp limit (unless not in TGP and that election is made) combined from ABC & XYZ in 2021 will be HCEs in 2022.

I am cleaning up the client's mess. IDK what ADP's official role except that they are taking over the plan. The financial advisor is the one who informed me that ADP was originally taking care of the 2020 form 5500. I've been paid in advance, I've included my cost to prepare 1099-Rs so if they are not needed then I made a little more for my trouble. Thanks to anyone who chimed in. As a small TPA I keep things very simple. I think the advisor thought what she was doing would help but did not think about the behind the scenes stuff that a TPA does to keep a plan out of trouble.

If you're calling it a merger then 2020 would be the final plan year, and no 1099-Rs are needed. There is a Q on the 5500 about transfers and liabilities to/from another plan, and as I recall you have to reference that plan (EIN and plan number) so in theory that should be coordinated with the other plan's reporting. I forgot that they are asking you to do the 5500...it's pretty offensive that you are being called back to bail them out. I might cave in and do the same thing but at the very least I think you want to get ADP involved and find out exactly how they get the idea that they can come in and "terminate" a plan and not take on any reaponsibility for the final filings. If you totally clean up their mess the client and broker will not appreciate what you've done.

If I were in your shoes I'd probably throw up my hands and say it's FUBAR'd and they can either cross their fingers and hope it's not reviewed, or hope they could explain to an auditor that the end result is what would have happened if they documentation had been done properly, as a merger. That's not to say there isn't some potential disastrous, or at least really bad, consequences, such as a careful auditor insisting that the SH contribution by the new company isn't that at all; it is profit sharing or whatever, and the old company still owes the SH. Fixing the 1099-Rs would be down on my worry list. I'd think the "best" actual fix would be to retroactively change it to a merger instead of a termination. I don't really know if that can be done through VCP. Just make it abundantly clear that ADP screwed it up, and royally, and should pay for the fixes and/or assume responsibility for future problems.

Surprised nobody bothered to confirm that J&S does not apply to the plan.

It is allocated as an employer contribution. If employer contributions to your qrp are subject to qjsa then yes otherwise no.

If there was no withholding, I'd want something in writing, just to chronicle it. Good thing is if it's a W-4P, then I believe the election is good until revoked. With W-4P "equivalents" I'm not sure if that election carries forward. And, if the RMD is distributed without the participant's consent, then, IMHO, the 10% MUST be withheld.

2021? or 2020?

Was 10% withheld for federal taxes?

The trust must have an EIN. Usually this comes up when you are opening a new account at a brokerage house, as they will need an EIN to open the account. Even if you get a EIN for the plan, you must still use the sponsor's EIN on the 5500. The only place the trust EIN will appear on the 5500 would usually be on the Schedule R, and if you're talking about small plans you wouldn't usually need to attach a Schedule R.

Belgarath is correct, "designated" beneficiary under IRS regs does not require the participant's actual designation. See reg 1.401(a)(9)-4, particularly Q&A-2. If you have access to ERISApedia.com, chapter 6 of their Qualified Plan eSource has a good discussion of this.

You would need a plan EIN for account ownership. Also, if the plan writes distribution checks from those accounts and does withholding it has to have its own EIN for withholding deposits, 945s and 1099-Rs. You can create a real mess if you deposit the withholding from a plan using the sponsor's EIN. The issue is you can find threads on here if you get a plan EIN and don't use it for a time the IRS will in effect declare the EIN no good. So this is a bit fact driven how important it is to get one.

I don't have time to do any research to confirm my memory on this, but I do believe that the regulations provide for a person to be considered a designated beneficiary if the plan document provides a default designation. I'm sure someone else will chime in.

I respectfully disagree. Also see the following from the IRS: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/rollovers-of-after-tax-contributions-in-retirement-plans#:~:text=Yes.,IRA without also including earnings.

The originating post’s description of the facts is that the plan’s sponsor “did not want to allow CRDs”, and might have provided something until it revoked whatever implied assent might have been set up by not promptly reacting to its recordkeeper’s notice. If the plan’s sponsor ended its plan’s provision for a coronavirus-related distribution before tax law’s allowance for such a provision expired, the eventual plan amendment might truthfully state what had been provided.

Agree with suggestion and yes, expired, but if they did not not allow after a certain date where legally they could, the plan amendment (or a resolution if generic pre-approved plan amendment) should reflect that or else they have an operational defect on the flip side. Especially if employee A tells employee B that she got a CRD so why didn't B and he says he asked an denied....bad, but then not having the documentation to support, worse.

yes that

I vote for your idea. If one uses IRS-preapproved documents and falls into the IRS’s remedial-amendment regime, eventually some document states what the plan’s sponsor and administrator (typically, the employer) treated the plan as having provided. And that document should follow what was assumed to have been provided. So: From {the date the implied assent became effective} to {the date the plan’s sponsor revoked the implied assent}, . . . .