Leaderboard

Here it is right here. And if B is getting a K-1, so is A, because S-corp profits must be distributed in proportion to shares of stock. Basically what you have is a partnership of professional corporations, which is the classic ASG as Bill said. Except that the "partnership" is organized as an S-corp., but it's still a service org, it is probably a professional organization and therefore an A-org FSO, but even it it's not, A and B would be professional corps so they can be the FSO.

Not that I know of, but yuck.

How can A, B and X not be an affiliated service group?

§415(c)(1)(B)

Sounds as though they're excess annual additions, rather than either deferrals (402g) or contributions (401k3).

I think it's a election in most pre-approved documents Peter and changing it would not likely take it out of pre-approved status. That said wouldn't the fact that loans still need to be repaid in the original 5 year time frame effectively limit the number of times a loan could be refinanced? I mean I guess it theory you could refinance it as may times as administratively feasible but as Bill Preston so eloquently puts it - yuck.

I don't think you are precluded from doing so but remember your transferred excess assets are required to be allocated (reasonably) ratably over 7 years or less.

The 5-year rule language is the standard/generic RMD provision, but a DBP can certainly provide only the QPSA in which case the 5-year rule would not be an option.

You’re seeing the distinction I invited you to think about. Even if one is confident that nothing in ERISA’s title I or the Internal Revenue Code requires a provision, one might be reluctant to change a provision from an IRS-preapproved document if doing so might defeat the user’s reliance on the IRS’s opinion letter. As I understand the IRS’s preapproval regime, the IRS does not review, and an IRS letter does not opine on, beyond-the-plan procedure documents, such as a separate participant-loan procedure.

Is the provision limiting participant loan refinancing: in a procedure document? or in the IRS-preapproved document (whether in the basic plan document, or in the choices the adoption agreement presents)? If the provision is in the IRS-preapproved document, would a user’s change defeat the user’s reliance on the IRS’s opinion letter?

The answer, we know, is that it has to be an ASG. It's a classic, textbook ASG.

The instructions are pretty clear that a one-participant plan can't file on a 5500-SF, so I suspect they'd counter that no valid filing was done at all. (Kinda like if you try to paper-file when you're not eligible to do anything *but* electronic filing of the EZ.)

SF is open to inspection EZ is not. I don't think the IRS will care that you filed a form with more disclosure rather than less disclosure.

Doesn't look like a controlled group to me. Do you have an Affiliated Service Group here? As for setting up a Plan for X assuming the Partner who owns company B (and then company B owns 75% of X) is the only employee of Company B then excluding company B won't be a problem as company B only employees HCEs and you can discriminate against HCEs. Now if A or B wants to set up it's own plan that's when you need to look and see if you have an affiliated service group or not.

I think you are simply confusing the fact that most of your plans use the SFNEC to satisfy safe harbor which also covers your TH minimum in most case. But since that is SFNEC it has to be 100% vested. Which you then typically use as the floor for your cross testing. Since you are using SHM in this plan the match is 100% vested but the other employer PS contributions are subject to the Plan vesting schedule. The fact that you are thinking about PS contrib "covering" different buckets like TH and Gateway for testing is irrelevant to the bigger picture that is still a single PS source.

Forget about the 3%. You are making a PS contribution of 5%. That is more than 3% so TH is satisfied. It (3%) does not get special treatment.

They have to. Attribution under 318 makes father and daughter 2% S Corp shareholders. For 5500 purposes they are threated as partners, so 5500EZ it is.

I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded. The only people who must get at least a gateway are those who are getting a 401(a) contribution. Match does not count. So unless the plan is top heavy, that person doesn't HAVE to get something if they are in a class that is receiving zero PS. However, if the sponsor wants to give them something, then they will ahve to get at least the gateway. Any nonelective 401(a) contribution (except a QNEC) is subject to the plan's vesting schedule for that money type. Remember, if the sponsor makes a PS, they lose the TH pass due to the SHMAC. If the plan is TH and that person must get the TH contrib, but doesn't meet the criteria for a PS, they still must get the gateway.

Successor plan issues aside, there may be a nondiscrimination issue if the timing of the plan termination was such that the NHCE would not benefit. See the rules under 1.401(a)(4)-5.

If the money was rolled over into the new plan, you have a violation of the successor plan rule because there was no distributable event. However, if the trustee of the old plan was directed by the company to transfer the money directly into the new plan, there was no violation because there was no distribution. You should check the paperwork in connection with the rollover. As far as coverage/discrimination, which was your original question, the new hire is statutorily excludable, so I don't have a problem with the contribution to the old plan as long as the owner was not statutorily excludable as well.

If the new plan is a 401(k) Plan don't you have a problem with the successor plan 12 month rule? Do the Plan Years overlap? What is the effective date of the new plan?