Leaderboard

Top heavy minimum is required. Rev. rul. 2004-13 example 2. Now if the employer had a separate profit sharing plan, they could make the contribution to that plan without triggering the top heavy minimum, because the first plan would still consist solely of deferrals and safe harbor contributions, and in the second plan no key employee gets a contribution. It seems silly, but that's the way the top heavy rules are written/interpreted...

Honestly, your question is hard to understand. Are you talking about someone who is a participant already? If so, the document defines the rules of when a person who is rehired re-enters the plan. I have plenty of plans that clearly say that a person who was a Participant in the past re-enters upon rehire regardless of how long they have been gone for example. Are you talking about an employee who never entered the plan? If so, a well written document tells you how to handle them when they are rehired. Depending on the exact facts and how the plan document is written they will get credit for their prior service and other times they will not. The document will reflect the law. The guy who trained me back in the early '90s was famous at the firm for saying: 99% of all your questions can be answered by reading the plan document. Even when it is a question of the law the document will simply reflect the law. This really is a read the freaking document question more than anything else in my opinion.

For EZ it's technically the IRS penalty relief program not the DOL DVFC program but yes you essentially have it correct. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/penalty-relief-program-for-form-5500-ez-late-filers For PBGC see instruction when to file. https://www.pbgc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-premium-payment-instructions.pdf It's typically the later of the normal dead line or 90 days after the adoption.

Depends on if they've got a minor child inducing a controlled group despite the non-involvement.....that law goes away soon but not for 2022.

You're correct that the fix for this is to have the participant repay the amount that was in excess of the available limit, with accrued interest. However, the bigger question to me is why did the brokerage house accept direction from an individual who is not a trustee?

EZ. Both are 2% S Corp shareholders so you treat them as partners.

This list doesn't include items that were or could be effective before 1/1/2024 and likely is missing some. These are rules to follow starting in 2024 that could be considered "must make" changes should they be needed: change in attribution of stock between parents and minor children. make retroactive discretionary amendments after plan year end and by the due date of the tax return to increase benefits. The plan may put in: emergency in-service withdrawals up to $1000 with no 10% excise and opportunity to repay. withdrawals for victims of domestic abuse with no 10% excise tax up to the lesser of $10,000 or half the account, and opportunity to repay. eliminating RMDs from Roth. allowing in the RMD rules for the surviving spouse to be treated as the deceased employee. The plan may add to its existing plan design: a match and add matching contributions on student loan repayments. involuntary distributions with a cash-out limit to $7000 from $5000. If the need arose, the plan could: use separate top-heavy testing for non-excludable and excludable employees. Given the plan design presented, the plan should not have to worry about LTPT employees. Given recent IRS guidance, non-Roth catch-ups are allowed for everyone (and given universal availability of catch-ups any restrictions on High Paids to Roth-only likely are not allowed).

If you can post here the broker-dealer’s agreement—redacting names, and without breaking the participant’s, the plan administrator’s, and any trustee’s privacy, we might learn something about instructions the agreement permits the broker-dealer to rely on: from which person, and for which transaction.

For eligibility purposes, you generally can not disregard any prior service. There is a special rule in section 410(a) that says a plan may disregard eligibility service that occurred before 5 consecutive 1-year breaks in service if the employee terminated with no vested account balance. If this rule applies, then the employee would be treated as a new hire. This so-called "rule of parity" is an option that may be used for determining eligibility service, but plans are not required to use it. edit: ESOP Guy is 100% correct below where he points out that this is a plan document provision, and whether/how to apply it is described in the document. It's not something that can be applied at the employer's discretion.

The problem with trying to use 25% is the failure to provide a timely notice. To use the 25%, the notice must be provided within 45 days of the start of the correct deferrals, which in this case admittedly did not happen. The notice deadline is not related to when the MDO occurred during the plan year