Leaderboard

This doesn't lend itself to a simple answer, and a whole lot of specific information would be required. But as a poor stab at a general, quick answer (with the HUGE caveat that are many possible permutations): When you have a controlled group of corporations, all of the employees of all of the corporations must be CONSIDERED for coverage, nondiscrimination, etc. Doesn't mean that you necessarily have to cover them, depending upon results, but they will be included in your testing. Your document provisions can matter - some automatically include them unless excluded, some are the opposite. Another issue is whether they signed on as participating employers, and the timing of such. Any back correction? Quite possibly, and might likely be looking at VCP rather than SCP. It sounds to me like you should take this to an ERISA attorney, or get the assistance of a TPA who is more familiar with these types of situations. It could be relatively simple, or incredibly complex, or anywhere between. Good luck!

First, you have a control group, so if the employee of company 2 is non-excludable then you have a coverage (and nondiscrimination) failure in company 1 plan. 1099 person is a contractor, not an employee, and cannot participate unless (s)he adopts the plan as a participating employer - which creates a multiple employer plan. I do not think a SIMPLE works, I'm not entirely sure because I do not work with them but would be surprised if the rule prohibiting any other plans did not apply to the control group. If they want dirt cheap admin for employee then maybe a SEP, but that would also be a control group plan that applied to owners and keeping 401k just for them does not work. They can't give the owners a Cadillac and provide a Yugo to their employee. They can skimp on admin cost across the board and get simplistic same level benefits across the board, or they can adopt a program that skews as much to the owners as legally possible for a reasonable employee and administrative cost.

The change in status does not create a distributable event.

Another option is to design a Crystal report to match the records you're trying to export, in such a way that when you then export the generated report to Excel, it's in exactly what Ascensus needs for a layout.

My other thought on this is that under the new Long-Term Part-Time rule in the SECURE Act, if any of the summer folks have worked 3 consecutive years with at least 500 hours starting with 2021 and are age 21, then on 1/1/24 they will be eligible to participate in the plan. So I think that starting in 2024 you will not be able to file an EZ, if you have anyone who meets that criteria.

Have you thought about applicability of IRC section 414(p)(3) (A)? No plan is designed to provide a distribution to a spouse of the participant except as a beneficiary or survivor. Let the proponent bear the burden of persuasion.

The $922.50 should remain deferral monies, that was the respective amount from the 1/12 estimated payroll. It doesn't not become deferrals merely because the '21 W-2 were incorrect as a result of the excess payment through payroll. Normally, a deposit following 1/26 would be more than 7 business days after 1/12 and therefore you would have a late deferral situation. However, the caveat is that the clock starts when the deferral can be segregated from the general assets of the employer, and without the bank account, and without the payroll calculation of the actual deferral amount, I would argue that the segregation date is therefore 1/26; and if deposited immediately thereafter, even the 1/12 amount is still timely. Sounds like the Plan is fine, I think you have a box 12 error on the w-2.

Maybe, but better to formally terminate. If never had a contribution, the fallout should not be great.

Luke, I find that I agree with almost everything you post, including back several years. Just as an FYI, I have always believed that (1) these people must be included (unless some special rule I don't know about exists), and (2) the Plan says Compensation is W-2 Compensation which includes tips. I would be careful with the "agent position" since that could be expanded to allow for the employee reimbursing the employer for deferrals from tips which I don't think would be allowed. I KNOW that some firms do this with with health insurance, even with 125. No, I don't recommend that. Just have seen that used. Anyway, it seems that the post by Nate S. for looking at "deferral application" might lead to something of value, but I am not yet at a point where I can comment there. We do have the 10/15 Deadline to worry about, so time is limited for this concern. Regardless, I value your opinions and comments and wish you well.

No, the problem here is you are getting too hung up on the idea the money is coming back to the plan it came from when thinking about the 1099-R. Where the money is rolled over to is irrelevant to the 1099-R question. If A takes $10k distribution. A gets a check for $8k and $2k is sent to the IRS. If A puts $10k into an IRA within 60 days the the plan prepares a 1099-R that show A got a $10k taxable distribution with $2k in withholding. The plan doesn't care if the money ended up in an IRA in the end. You prepare the 1099-R based on what happened as the money left the plan- period full stop! Assuming A can roll $10k back into the plan and does so the 1099-R still shows a $10k taxable distribution with $2k sent to the IRS. In both cases when the person completes their 1040 they will show the money as rolled into a qualified plan and thus no taxes due. He will get credit for the withholding at that point and his net taxes due or refunded will make him whole. To repeat the 1099-R reflect the transaction as the money leaves the plan AND DOESN'T REFLECT ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS TO THE MONEY BEYOND THAT EVENT.

Might this come down to whether or not the formerly-eligible person continues to maintain a balance from before the transfer to per diem?

It's not a "rollover from itself". It's a rollover from a qualified plan. I doubt there is a 1099 question. The Plan prepares the 1099 based on the distribution (eg, direct rollover? cash? combination? based on death/disability?, etc). The Plan never cares what the recipient does with the money afterward. The plan (probably) does not prepare a 1099 to reflect the rollover, but it likely provides the participant with some documentation that it received the rollover; this provides the participant with documentation where the money is as well as compliance with the 60-day rule. Anticipating your next question, if the distribution is $10K consisting of $8K cash + $2K tax withholding, the participant may make a rollover of anything up to $10K. The Plan does not care what financial bucket that money comes from, but the Plan will normally want proof that the rollover does not exceed the total distribution.

https://www.aon.com/getmedia/f57621bb-9f2c-44f9-a088-7bb29a38da20/Schwallie-Defined-Benefit-Plan-Termination-Exorcising-the-Excise-Tax-on-Reversion-JPPC-Summer-2020.aspx Here is a detailed article. It looks like the excise tax is 20%.

This is what the Form 5500-EZ says right above the signature line: So I don't see how a plan administrator could sign a 5500-EZ before the Schedule SB has been signed without perjuring themselves.

Does the plan define "active participant?" If not, and depending on usage elsewhere in the document, I think the PA could interpret as strictly or liberally as desired provided such interpretation is reasonable. For example, "active participant" could be deemed to mean any participant currently employed by the plan sponsor. Just a thought, if allowing the RO is desired.

Yes you are right... last day doesn't matter here. And Damn, I asked this question before. EZ Eligible Thanks Bri for responding