Leaderboard

Possible, sure. Advisable, I'll leave that up to you.

I would just fix them and move on - it's only a reporting error. Unless additional amounts were forfeited applying the vested percentage a second time, which does not seem to have happened, nothing has been taken away from the participant.

I'd run this past an ERISA attorney

We retroactively amended the plan. One thought was that the amendment is correcting the operational failure of depositing the PS based on full-year salary. Also, before the plan was adopted, several illustrations went back and forth clearly showing the PS based on full year comp, therefore showing intent.

I don't think this practice is compliant with ERISA, so I'd be surprised to hear from their "compliance" department coming out from behind the curtain on this any time soon. It's probably discriminatory against NHCEs, and an operational failure (not operating the plan in accordance with its terms) to boot. Some problems with not reporting a termination status change or termination date timely can include (1) incorrect vesting if based on elapsed time (unless you override vesting percentages), (2) potentially incorrect census counts for 5500 if not reported timely - such as waiting until distribution (3) not treating the person as terminated could cause you to treat them as "wired at work" inappropriately for DOL electronic disclosure purposes (4) not allowing them to elect a distribution when they should be allowed to. Most if not all of these (except the operational failure part) would not be a problem if it's a grandfathered governmental 401(k), for example. If you are the plan administrator, and they are your recordkeeper, you can ORDER them to cease this practice and to fix it by restoring those amounts to their accounts. If you don't, you may have joined in on a breach.

Is 415 pro-rated or subject to the restriction, if any, of the "Limitation Year" in the doc?

My understanding is that 415(h) applies only to parent-sub groups by reference to 1563(a)(1) (leaving out (a)(2), which covers brother-sister groups). Under 1563, I also don't think person 1's 75% ownership interest of company 2 will be attributed to company 1, so I don't think you have a 415(h) parent-sub group either.

Don't forget to check the excluded stock rules, especially if person 2 is an employee of company 2 and person 1 has a non-reciprocal right such as a right of first refusal on person 2's stock.

Correct; no GC based on those facts.

Adopt a new plan 002 retro to 1/1 under SECURE; fund that for 2021; and merge into the old one for 2022; file $0 5500 for plan 001 for 2021? Kind of a PITA but I think it would solve your proration issues.

From a NY SHRM site that I'm assuming is accurate but I don't know for sure. Who Does This Apply To? The program applies to both nonprofit and for-profit employers in New York state that meet the following requirements: The employer has not already offered their employees a qualified retirement plan including, but not limited to, a 401(a), 401(k), 403(a), 403(b), 408(k), 408(p) or (457(b) plan, in the last two years. The employer has at least 10 employees in the state over previous calendar year at all times. The employer has been in business for a minimum of two years.

Excluding bonuses is considered reasonable within 414s if it doesn't by design discriminate in favor of HCEs. Passing the test shows that it doesn't. You're good to go. Here's a link if you want. Compensation definition

Beyond checking your service agreement, consider also: If you are a practitioner before the Internal Revenue Service: 31 C.F.R. § 10.28 Return of client’s records https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-31/subtitle-A/part-10/subpart-B/section-10.28. If you are a member of the American Retirement Association or one of its “affiliate organizations”: “When a Principal has given consent for a new or additional professional to consult with a Member with respect to a matter for which the Member is providing or has provided Professional Services, the Member shall cooperate in assembling and transmitting pertinent data and documents, subject to receiving reasonable compensation for the work required to do so. In accordance with Circular 230, the Member shall promptly, at the request of the Principal, return any and all records of the Principal that are necessary for the Principal to comply with federal tax Law, even if the Member is not subject to Circular 230. The existence of a fee dispute generally does not relieve the Member of this responsibility except to the extent permitted by applicable state Law. The Member need not provide any items of a proprietary nature or work product for which the Member has not been compensated. ARA Code of Conduct rule 8.B https://www.usaretirement.org/code-conduct Even when applying rules of this kind, many practitioners distinguish between records and a professional’s work product. And even about records, one might distinguish between original records and copies. In another BenefitsLink discussion, Larry Starr suggests deliberately not possessing the original of a client’s record. (One might lack a duty or obligation to make copies of copies of records already in a client’s possession.) And as Larry observed in 2020’s discussion, a prospect of incurring fees might motivate a former client to become less lazy about looking for what it already has. https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/65925-circular-230-ethics/ Would you like a retaining lien so you need not deliver work your client hasn’t paid for? Would you like a copying fee? An assembly fee? A delivery fee? What’s in your service agreement? Now that March 15 season is over, is it time for some spring cleaning?

I think the first choice is easier. Just make sure Plan B provides service credit and has an appropriate entry date (all as needed) You'll then provide the Plan B SH notices to the Plan A participants to enroll. When you merge the Plan A into Plan B, you're still creating a short plan year and 5500 filing for Plan A.

I don't see an A-org relationship, but you would have to look at the revenue thresholds for a B-org affiliation; and make sure you look at it from both directions: with the Dialysis Center as the FSO; and then compare with the Physician practice as the FSO. Also, ask the physician to explain where dialysis services have historically been performed, I always view that as a hospital, or specialty setting, due to the previous expense of the machines themselves.

I have not considered how that law and whatever funding might be provided affects a participant’s benefit rights. But in the theory of ERISA § 206(d)(3), one might write an order to provide an alternate payee alternative shares and payments following the occurrence or non-occurrence of a contingent event. What matters is whether the order “clearly specifies” the command the plan’s administrator is called to act on. “A domestic relations order meets the requirements of [ERISA § 206(d)(3)(C)] only if such order clearly specifies— . . . (ii) the amount or percentage of the participant’s benefits to be paid by the plan to each such alternate payee, or the manner in which such amount or percentage is to be determined, [and] (iii) the number of payments or period to which such order applies[.]” ERISA § 206(d)(3)(C)(ii)-(iii), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(C)(ii)-(iii) (emphasis added). http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:29%20section:1056%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title29-section1056)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true If I were advising the plan’s administrator, I might tell them not to accept an order unless it leaves the administrator in no doubt about exactly what to do or not do.