Leaderboard

Not an option - more than 6% ER was contributed to DC so there is a 31% combined plan deduction limit for 2022, end of story. Can still do CB for 2022 and deduct up to that 31% total for 2022 and deduct the rest for 2023. Maybe the 2023 total max CB deduction is high enough to cover that residual 2022 plus the 2023 minimum, maybe not - it could be 2024 before deductions catch up. They can try to remove the 2022 PS in excess of 6% and maybe it never gets caught, but if it does, you've got some 'splaining to do Lucy and I don't think IRS will buy the excuse.

Starting next year, or paying the excise tax.

Does he have any rollover money in the plan? The plan may allow in-service distributions of rollover at any age.

Peter, those whose benefits are collectively bargained are mandatorily disaggregated, statutorily excluded from sections of the plan for non-bargaining employees and tested separately, so does it matter?

What may happen is that IRS and/or DOL, based the 5500, sends a letter to plan sponsor asking for information to justify a partial termination did not occur. Also, if these termed NHCEs were fully vested then no issue. On your other question, agree you need to test your SH+PS.

I'd be worried that if one suggests they only get the vested portion, that would hint at perhaps the plan didn't do something with the forfeitures earlier, when it perhaps should have by now. But the plan document can confirm that - the timing of, and directed use of nonvested amounts.

It's not excess annual additions or mistake of fact. They need to start in 2023.

I generally would agree with BG, but I'd be a little careful. The IRS generally assumes all terminations are involuntary, but that's a rebuttable assumption. So if the employer can prove to the IRS' satisfaction that these were in fact voluntary terminations (and not in response to some employer action) then yes, shouldn't be a PPT.

Both of the people who answered made it clear the document has to allow a stock distribution. This is qualified plan 101 and it applies to ESOP and other plans- you have to follow the plan document. So if the document requires cash distributions there isn't an NUA possibility.

What type of plan? What sources of fund are in the plan? Certain sources are only eligible for in service on after age 59.5, other sources can be withdrawn earlier if the plan allows and and you meet certain conditions.

No, they should be able to provide a copy of the offer showing at least the loan value will be paid in cash. If it's financed, then almost assuredly the mortgage company will ask for a letter of explanation as to the source of the funds. And if close to closing, the closing agreement/reconciliation should show the loan as either itself as a source of funding, or the participant bringing at least that much cash. I think the PA still needs to prudently act like a commercial lender; hardship doesn't get repaid, so self-certify made sense since ability to repay is not relevant, and an employee's personal needs are not the business of the sponsor.

If I was in your situation with both a 2021 and 2017 return on record, I would engage a professional NOW. My argument would be that I never intended to file a 2017 return, and only did so on the misguided advice of an IRS representative. I think your problem is that you need someone who speaks the same language as the IRS and knows which arguments are valid. Perhaps even more important, they know what not to argue.

I think this was the wrong thing to do. You weren't filing a 2017 return. This was bad (stupid?) advice and you were wrong to take it.

Does the plan include severance in the definition of compensation? Gotta be sure on what that "severance" really is, too. And if you're excluding a portion of eligible compensation, but not that of the doctor's, will you have a 414(s) issue?