Leaderboard

(Send the IRS just one of the five dogs at the poker table.)

yeah it works perfectl yfor me to. The name of the file is no longer "filing". Now it is the AckID. Somehow I doubt that is our problem but thought I would mention it. Try a different browser maybe?

Ongoing plan = auto rollover. Terminating plan = turn over to PBGC under missing participant rules. And to the consternation of many, if you have unresponsive participants in a terminating DBP with PVABs/CB accounts less than $5,000 that do not return election forms then you cannot auto rollover and must treat as missing participants and remit benefits to PBGC.

If the Plan allows changes at any time then yes, they can go from 0% to greater than 0% at any time.

I think this should be drafted as an incentive or bonus plan. It's not an ERISA pension plan because it does not "systematically defer" payouts until termination of covered employment which is the ERISA pension plan definition under section 3(2)(A). There's a good blog on this topic at https://www.winston.com/en/executive-compensation-blog/guest-blog-is-your-bonus-plan-subject-to-erisa.html Analyzing this as a deferred compensation arrangement or bonus plan, it fails to comply with Code section 409A because it allows payouts upon request, rather than fixing payment dates by reference to events (separation from service or change in control) or fixed dates.

Interesting, because that's not what the reg says. One of the examples in the reg clearly says you can use one bond to cover both the qualifying and non-qualifying assets. However it might be easier to get a second bond than to argue with a DOL agent if the plan is under audit. DOL reg 2520.104-46(b)(1)(iii)(B), relevant section highlighted.

And if any property (other than money) is not sold, a plan’s administrator, trustee, and payer might consider what procedures they use (or each uses) to estimate the fair market value of that property.

This is from 35.3405-1T, Q&A F2: f-2. Q. How is withholding accomplished if a payee receives only property other than employer securities? A. A payor or plan administrator must satisfy the obligation to withhold on distributions of property other than employer securities even if this requires selling all or part of the property and distributing the cash remaining after Federal income tax is withheld. However, the payor or plan administrator may instead permit the payee to remit to the payor or plan administrator sufficient cash to satisfy the withholding obligation. Additionally, if a distribution of property other than cash includes property that is not includible in a designated distribution, such as the distribution of U.S. Savings Bonds or an annuity contract, such property need not be sold or redeemed to meet any withholding obligation.

Too bad. Should have diversified.

I agree with Bri. There is no waiver of the mandatory withholding just because it's an in-kind distribution. If it's an eligible rollover distribution then mandatory withholding applies. They might need to sell some assets in order to pay the withholding.

1 and 2 are a controlled group. Dad is attributed mom's 50% and, since dad owns more than 50% of 2, he is attributed the 30% from sister, his adult child. This is under Section 1563 attribution. No attribution in 3 because neither owns more than 50%. And no attribution in 4 due to siblings.

There are a few things that are involved in order to be able to handle this question with a correct response. First of all, if we were referencing a new plan that became effective during 2021, the plan document would need to be signed, as a result of the SECURE Act amendment, by the due date of the employer's tax return for the 2021 tax year. This overrides the previous rule that a new plan document had to be adopted by the end of the plan year in which it was made effective for it to be a valid plan. Since the question is dealing with amendments and restatements, we reference the remedial amendment period of Code Section 401(b) and any further extension provided by legislation making revisions to the qualification requirements. Remember, that for the SECURE Act, to the extent we are discussing mandatory provisions versus discretionary provisions, the rule is that the plan document needs to be adopted by the close of the 2022 as a general rule (with exceptions for collectively bargained plans and as otherwise provided in the SECURE Act). To the extent that the client has amended the plan to make a provision concerning a discretionary change that was made by legislation, the rule is that it has to be adopted by the close of the plan year in which the change has been made effective. To provide you with the correct answer, I would need to know whether the amendment and the restatement involve discretionary changes to the qualification rules or mandatory changes, based on the rules outlined above.

Calavera already gave you the answer: 1, 2 & 5. 3 & 4 are not part of the controlled group.

If there's nothing that needed a 2021 date, why risk it?

I would suspect they'd have to re-sign updated pages with 2022 as the effective date, and double-check that they didn't inadvertently have any changed provisions that needed a 12/31/21 signature date. And yet, if this were a brand new plan (absent salary deferrals) it would be fine, right? Hmmmm......

Only 1, 2, and 5. Adult son owns 100% of Company 4 and it is not attributable to parents.