Leaderboard

I agree with this. And you may already be aware of this, but with Fidelity, the magic words are "non-prototype account" when you are setting up an account with them but not using their document. Otherwise they will try to set up yet another plan...

Wasn’t January 30, 2022 the deadline to contribute the after-tax contribution for a plan year that ended December 31, 2021?

John is correct if you're really talking about 2021. If you're talking about 2022, I would only choose option 1. The other two don't make any sense.

After collecting relevant facts, including when and where the employee works, and considering how the US-Canada income tax treaty applies in the employee’s circumstances, the plan sponsor might consider this: “Special treaty rule. In addition, an employee who is a nonresident alien (within the meaning of section 7701(b)(1)(B)) and who does receive earned income (within the meaning of section 911(d)(2)) from the employer that constitutes income from sources within the United States (within the meaning of section 861(a)(3)) is permitted to be excluded, if all of the employee’s earned income from the employer from sources within the United States is exempt from United States income tax under an applicable income tax convention. This paragraph (c)(2) applies only if all employees described in the preceding sentence are so excluded.” 26 C.F.R. § 1.410(b)-6(c)(2) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-1/subject-group-ECFR686e4ad80b3ad70/section-1.410(b)-6#p-1.410(b)-6(c)(2).

I think you are just confused. A match by definition is based on the amount of the deferral. Otherwise it would just be a nonelective contribution. What you are thinking of, maybe, is that you can limit the match to a certain percentage of compensation, or limit the amount of deferrals matched to a certain percentage of compensation. For example you could say the match is equal to 10% of deferrals up to 16% of compensation, then in your example with the 20% deferral, only $2000 of the $2500 would be matched, and the matching contribution would be $200. It's still a percentage of the amount deferred though.

Check the document and/or SERP agreement and/or any other related forms, a well-drafted set of documents would answer most of these. If the plan calls for full vesting upon plan termination then I don't see how you can discount for vesting probability. Interest and mortality assumptions play a big part as well and should be specified somewhere, even if through reference to a qualified DB plan, if any. For the 45-year-old, I would calculate the current (distribution date) LSPV of the accrued 5-year installment benefit payable at age 60 or whenever the benefit could actually be payable. Make sure you comply with the 409A plan termination accelerated payment rules, terminating all like plans and paying benefits within the specified window period.

If you have no coverage issues (assuming you can't statutorily exclude per Peter) then I strongly suggest excluding the employee and maybe give them more in pay. Interestingly (or annoyingly) it's the complexity of Canadian retirement plan rules that are the big headache, and more for the employee than the employer if I remember. Do everyone a favor and make it easier by excluding.

If you have new comparability and cross-test your profit sharing (and maybe SHNE), you project those contributions to NRA and convert to annuity at NRA. Depending on specific plan demographics, proposed designs should be tested at different NRAs to see which is most advantageous. However, if adding a CB in the near future is a real consideration, then I suggest NRA no earlier than 62 unless you want to amend later and track separate balances with different NRAs.

Cares Act (and related Amendments) seem both pretty specific to 2020 as well as being completely discretionary, I can't see why it would apply to a plan established after 2020.

I recommend this: https://www.lfg.com/wcs-static/pdf/Attribution of Ownership in Retirement Plans - PDF.pdf

Under this formula, a participant no longer is credited with additional service after 10 years of service. At 10% per year that means their accrued benefit is equal to 100% of their average compensation after 10 years of service. They will most likely still have increases in their accrued benefit after year 10, not due to additional service, but due to increases in average compensation. Lump sums in DB plans are subject to the 417(e) minimum. If the employee's average pay was $75,000/year, that's $6,250/month, which would be equal to their accrued benefit if they have 10 years of service. My software tells me that the present value factor using the 2022 applicable mortality table and the October 2022 segment rates, for a participant currently age 47 with normal retirement age 65, is 52.571. $6,250 x 52.571 = $328,569. The actuary should be able to explain how they came up with the $315,000 number.