Leaderboard

Was the adopting employer also required to sign the restated document (i.e. two signatures)? Was the e-signature not set up to do that? If not, first, I would "blame" the recordkeeper, and make them fix it (and we usually recommend a VCP filing to get approval for a retroactive amendment to cure). However, being practical as well, did the CFO sign with intent on behalf of both entities? I'm guessing when asked (prompted) appropriately, the answer is yes, and now it becomes a documentation problem. Gather the appropriate documentation to prove it, then do a clarifying amendment to make the AA match what the employer already says happened, and move on....

They are also a participant for most purposes other than accruing a benefit. So they have the same rights to notices, payments, loans.... as other participants.

I would just let it go and file the EZ going forward. We have changed from SFs to EZs and surprisingly, the govt seems to be able to recognize it. If not, it is an easy explanation; easier I think than asking for headaches by filing an amended return.

Good... Not sure what e-sign service is in use, but when we add a participating employer, we do an "addendum" (not a restatement) and it requires two signatures - and our e-sign process specifies in advance who needs to sign, and routes the document as specified, automatically. If the same person needs to sign as both, we set it up with signatures in two places, and it can't be complete until both signatures are completed. If it isn't completed with a period of time, reminders go out, and it's set up with an expiration date - and well before the expiration date, someone is reaching out to find out why the document wasn't complete. Pretty straightforward - and the only problem we had was finishing up cycle 3 restatements (we did about 2200 of 'em) was ONE client who couldn't sign, because he couldn't get internet service or phone service on his skiing trip to the Swiss Alps, and there wan no other authorized signer.... Poor guy..... 😁

If you are describing your document terms correctly, the document is unfortunately drafted. I prefer to use “participant” and it variants to mean someone who is eligible to accrue a benefit or has an account under the plan. I am not fond of “active” vs. “inactive” either because of what is included or excluded by implication (perhaps incorrectly). For example, an “inactive” participant may still be able to direct investment of the participant’s account. That sounds kinda active to me if I am not familiar with the definitions.

They are (if there is a balance), just not entitled to future contributions.

Participants in an excluded class typically continue to earn vesting service as long as they remain an employee of the employer, they just can't accrue additional benefits.

If I'm reading your post correctly, this participant would have been born on or after 1/1/1951? If so, then RBD is based on age 73. Assuming born during 1951, then age 73 would be during 2024. So RBD for the 2024 year could be as late as 4/1/2025.