Leaderboard

I'm sure his first regular paycheck was for his final time worked still as an ineligible employee, and that's still typically eligible compensation (lord help you if your document got cute there). Same concept applies, that the date of payment governs, rather than the date of service. Of course, if the bonus has been paid out to the participant, it's too late to defer from it.

He can do an EZ the year after the plan was still Title I. So if all the payouts done in 2023, then 2024 would be an EZ just for the one-participant plan.

Yes, can exclude until 21. But you can allow them in at regular age if you choose. One of the many decisions that will have to be made shortly re the LTPT.

I agree with Bri and CuseFan. Even though the bonus was attributable to the employee's performance for a period predating his/her entry into the plan, for the most part, in the absence of a contrary plan provision, what is considered eligible compensation is determined on the cash receipts and disbursements method (i.e., salary and bonus amounts are considered to be compensation when they are paid even if earned prior to that time. Most payroll systems tend to follow that method.

Before the administrator of the PEO’s pooled-employer plan or other multiple-employer plan adopts an interpretation that one counts the wages Internal Revenue Code § 414(v)(7) refers to without counting wages paid by the participant’s former employer that now is the PEO’s service recipient, the administrator might want a written legal opinion of expert employee-benefits counsel. For that advice, a mixed question of law and fact might be affected by the particular plan’s governing documents, including provisions other than those for which SECURE 2022 permits a years-later remedial amendment. Also, the PEO and the PEO plan’s administrator each might want its lawyer’s advice about whether a failure affects the tax treatment of the whole plan, or only a portion of the plan attributable to the service recipient that brought the problem.

$12,500. It's a letter ruling request under the jurisdiction of Employee Plans - see rev. proc. 2023-04 sec. 24.01 and the fee schedule in appendix A of the same procedure.

Yes, you can defer on compensation that is not yet available to you (i.e., pay date), but read and follow the plan document as Bri alluded.

First, the 6% deferral is part of their salary and a piece that they have control over on a payroll period basis. So if the total negotiated compensation is $100,000 (forgetting about the match for now), the $6,000 deferral does not reduce compensation for other contributions and benefits, it only reduces taxable compensation. Employer contributions are not considered compensation so there can be no employee election, otherwise you have a cash or deferred arrangement (i.e., more 401(k) deferrals). However, as part of initial negotiation and setting starting compensation, I see no reason an employer could not assume the employee will defer 6% and get a 6% match. Say starting pay would be $106,000, and match of $6,000 is assumed in the total rewards package such that compensation is started at $100,000 - and that should be locked in, if they decide to not defer (or to stop) they don't get that match in their pay. I think a dig into the 401(k) regulations and definitions of what is a salary deferral and what is a matching contribution will clear that up. A match being an employer contribution contingent upon the employee making a salary deferral. Your client wants to also make it contingent upon/resulting in a reduction in pay.

I'd say no, but obviously be sure you apply those catch-ups towards each participant's catch-up limit for the appropriate calendar year, including other catchups that may occur in the surrounding years.

Some plans’ administrators might interpret § 1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(ii)(B)(5)’s use of child by considering, even if it does not apply, Internal Revenue Code § 152(f)(1)(A)(i), which treats a stepson or stepdaughter as the taxpayer’s child for purposes of § 152. 26 C.F.R. § 1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(ii)(B)(5) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/part-1/section-1.401(k)-1#p-1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(ii)(B)(5) I.R.C. (26 U.S.C.) § 152 http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:26%20section:152%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title26-section152)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true This is only one of many possible interpretations. I give no advice to anyone.

Your question is about adjusting 415 for multiple annuity starting dates, which is a complex topic. The IRS found it complex enough that they have never finalized their proposed regulations on the subject, replacing them with simply the word "Reserved" in the final regulations. It's not something that can be easily answered in a forum post. If you're looking for ideas on how to proceed, you can find some experts' thoughts here: https://www.google.com/search?q=415+masd+site%3Aasppa.org

BG5150, the issue seems not to be addressed in either the 414(w) regulations or the preamble to the regulations. I think you could interpret both the statute and the regulations either way, in effect interpreting "employee" as including someone who was, obviously, an employee when the auto contributions were made. Neither the statute nor the regulations appear to preclude that interpretation. Belgarath's take certainly is closer to the literal language of both the statute and the regs. On the other hand, treating this as a permissible withdrawal under 414(w) would seem more in keeping with the purpose of the statute to protect new employees from the consequences of having unelected elective contributions made. I take it there is no vested match here that would, in effect, counterbalance the effect of the 10% premature distribution tax?

Sure it's allowed. In fact if the Plan Document says comp is not limited to when they are a participant, not only is allowed, it's required.