Leaderboard

I'm not sure if I'm understanding the thrust of your question correctly. In my experience in the industry, the vast majority of in-plan Roth conversions are, in fact, from pre-tax funds. The "mega back door Roth" is a niche used by a far smaller number of plans. But at any rate, the answer is yes, you can have a provision in your plan to convert pre-tax contributions, and many do.

I think the QRP rules are fairly specific and detailed, that any remaining excess not allocated after the earlier of the 7th year or termination of the QRP (due to 415 limits, otherwise you must allocate to remaining participants at such time) must be reverted and is subject to taxes. If a QRP to a QRP were allowed, an employer could simply run a string of QRPs that used excess assets indefinitely into the future. https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=26-USC-276939643-615333267&term_occur=999&term_src=title:26:subtitle:D:chapter:43:section:4980

You would use the last valuation date on or before 12/31. So if that's 3/31 without any daily val language or interim valuations, then that's what you use. (Although any contributions/distributions allocated "by" 12/31 could adjust that dollar figure.) And any 2023 RMD age updates won't affect 2022's calculations.

Wait, what date did THEY fill in as the general restatement date, then? Normally I'd be using the first of the year the plan is restated, unless I had anything that definitely was different in terms of when the plan operated that way. Most Cycle 3 Plan Overhauls (C3POs) are going to end up with a 1/1/22 effective date in my case.

Since the restatement is required to maintain the Plan's tax-qualified status, which benefits the participants, it's administrative and may be charged to the Plan.

agree 100% - but in order to allow this the plan must first have a Roth deferral provision.

yes.

Well they can't deduct it if the contributions are made after the due date of the tax return for the year of the contribution.

Yes, a TPA (if it does not add what retirement-services people call a § 3(16) service) typically has service arrangements designed to keep the TPA a non-fiduciary contractor. But PamR’s originating post states: “We are signed on as a Fiduciary on the Investment Advisory side[.]”

This is a question every cycle. For the last restatement cycle, IRS allowed you to use a retroactive effective date OR the the first day of the plan year in which the restatement was signed. (We were told that directly by the volume submitter coordinators.) That was a little confusing. We mostly used the latter except for a couple of particular cases where there was a compelling reason to go back six years. When we had our nonstandardized plan approved by IRS for this cycle, they specifically said that the restatement effective date could NOT be earlier than the first day of the plan year in which the restatement was signed. In fact, we were required to add that as a parameter in the document. So, for calendar year plans, the ones we restated last year were effective 1/1/21 and the ones we restated this year were effective 1/1/22. We've found that for changes in the document that were previously covered by an interim amendment, there's no need for a special effective date in the restatement. For clients who are adopting new provisions in 2022, we add the effective date to the pre-approved language. IRS has said that adding an effective date to a provision is not considered to be a modification to the pre-approved language. For example, we have a client on a calendar year plan who is adding Roth deferrals effective 7/1/22. The restatement is effective 1/1/22 but we inserted a 7/1/22 effective date for the Roth deferral provisions.

Absent a QDRO, depending on plan terms it could be that the participant was required to commence a single life annuity rather than a J&S. If person was put into pay status automatically at RBD, then that may likely be the case. If they made a valid election of a J&S, and plan allows for non-spouse beneficiary, then that may be irrevocably set. It seems like you know the facts, apply the terms of the plan based on those facts, including any adjustments and corrections to what was initially done. If there is a subsequent, post commencement QDRO, then it could assign a portion of the retiree's life annuity but that would cease upon the retiree's death, you could not after the fact implement a forced J&S upon the plan.

I don't think so. Furthermore, I don't think that person is statutorily excludable from coverage and discrimination testing (assuming Martha is US citizen) as none of the listed exclusions apply. She simply goes from an eligible class of employee to non-eligible class of employee, and still earns vesting service for employment with XYZ UK.

We almost always use the first day of the plan year whether that's retroactive for the current year or a few months ahead for the new year. If there are specific changes made to the plan, then we'll use special effective dates. What I don't want to happen is to have to look at two plan document to see what impacted the plan for a year.

CuseFan is correct. Also, the Employer can make an S corp distribution of earnings to the ESOP (akin to a dividend). The distribution of earnings is not a contribution nor a Sec 415 annual addition, The distribution of earnings is generally allocated to participants based on shares, not compensation. Based on the accountant's explanation that the company is not treating the "contribution" as a "contribution'", this may in fact be what is happening.

It's to keep some HCE from terminating early in the year with all 20,500 deferred but maybe only 60,000 in wages earned to date making a mess of the test and causing ALL the 20,500 people for the year to have to take a refund.

Alternatively, consider that the company C 401(k) plan fails coverage (not to mention nondiscrimination), is deemed not qualified and therefore contributions are returned as not deductible. Need to amend any W2 and tax return(s) based on the invalid deduction. So basically, similar result as presented by Peter but even if documents were signed. You'll need to confirm if document language supports.

I don't know if company being an S-corp makes this impossible, but can't the company distribute the shares and then repurchase them directly from participants? I know there is an ESOP guy on this forum, so hoping he'll chime in with a definitive answer for you.