Leaderboard

Occasionally greater truths are learned on this board.

What Bill said.

Case in point. Sometimes the level of incoherence is astounding.

Ananda, you are all over the map. If I were you I'd start all over and see if you could get a coherent response. To add fuel to the fire of incoherence another option for notarization is e notarization, made popular during covid.

I don't think the two things are tied together. Can't you just call the IRS auditor and ask for an extension?

Depends on the document, though she would usually immediately re-enter. So, RTFD.

It is your discretion whether to use the SHM or not in the ACP test. If VAT contributions are made, then the plan does not consist "solely" of deferrals and a safe harbor contribution. Therefore, the plan is subject to top heavy rules.

I'm going to say I don't know because I wouldn't do it this way. You are effectively amending the plan document by drafting each exhibit, and in my world I don't see how it can't be signed (before 1000 hours are worked). But I would control all of this through profit sharing contributions, not CB credits.

If your plan’s governing documents allow it, a separation could excuse the spouse’s consent for a distribution or loan that otherwise requires that consent if the three conditions are met. (My explanation of the three conditions is grounded on 26 C.F.R. § 1.401(a)-20/Q&A-27. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-1/subject-group-ECFR6f8c3724b50e44d/section-1.401(a)-20 Under the 1978 Reorganization Plan, that Treasury rule also is an authoritative interpretation for ERISA § 205.) Because a separation exception’s conditions include a court order, it’s wise for the participant to consider whether a court would grant the order he requests, and what legal provisions a judge would want in effect before granting the separation order. My last paragraph mentioned the domestic-relations point because a judge who understands that a separation order could deprive the spouse of her survivor annuity might want to first make some other provision to get the spouse her share of marital property. Remember, no court order means no exception to the spouse’s-consent provision.

Belgarath, I think the RMDs came from other participants' assets. Ananda, if I were trying to fix this, I'd have to re-create the transactions that occured and (I guess) somehow treat the distributions that were made from other participants as "loans" or otherwise treat them as money owed from that one participant to others. Then...I'm not sure how it would be fixed; the participant owes them money but has none. First step would be to ask for money back; assuming it is not coming back then (I think) ultimately the sponsor should be making that up. Honestly, more questions than answers...the big one being "how could this possibly happen?" Was an accountant handling the plan?

I had started to reply, but got interrupted. Since my reply was going to be substantially the same as shERPA's, I'll just say, "What shERPA said."

Here you go: Prop. Treas. Reg. Section 1.125-7: (f) Safe harbor test for premium-only-plans. (1) In general. A premium-only-plan (as defined in paragraph (a)(13) of this section) is deemed to satisfy the nondiscrimination rules in section 125(c) and this section for a plan year if, for that plan year, the plan satisfies the safe harbor percentage test for eligibility in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. (2) Example. The following example illustrates the rules in paragraph (f) of this section: Example. Premium-only-plan. (i) Employer F's cafeteria plan is a premium-only-plan (as defined in paragraph (a)(13) of this section). The written cafeteria plan offers one employer-provided accident and health plan and offers all employees the election to salary reduce same amount or same percentage of the premium for self-only or family coverage. All key employees and all highly compensated employees elect salary reduction for the accident and health plan, but only 20 percent of nonhighly compensated employees elect the accident and health plan. (ii) The premium-only-plan satisfies the nondiscrimination rules in section 125(b) and (c) and this section.

Whether it is a definitely determinable issue might depend on when this exhibit is drafted - and is it signed? In any event I wouldn't do it. edited for spelling

I don't have a problem with definitely determinable benefits. If you follow the document the benefits are definitely determinable. What I do have concerns about is a bit more esoteric. 411 d6 provides that a pattern of amendments may give rise to required continuations. For example if a participant is listed on exhibit a 3 years in a row does that establish an expectation of being on exhibit a in the fourth year? I told you it was esoteric.

https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/definitely-determinable-benefits