Leaderboard

For sole proprietors, the compensation is considered "earned" on December 31, but not technically determined until the 1040 is done. So the deferral deposits can be made up until the 1040 is filed. However, the owner must have made an election to defer on or before the prior December 31 because all 401(k) deferrals have to be elected before the compensation is earned. After-tax contributions have to be deposited by January 31 in order to be credited for the prior year. The Roth conversion typically takes place on the same day of the after tax contribution deposit. You as an employer can still make employer contributions up until your filing deadline. So, it's likely that all your deadlines have passed except for the employer contribution.

my every once and a while peek in nice to see the spreadsheet is still being used at least I am remembered for something! God has been very kind to me the past year. still seem to be in good health. turned 66 last month and next month I put in my application for Soc Sec. what excitement, but I think my heart will hold out. Don't miss the rat race, able to get up every morning and get over to church without having the worries of testing and forms and deadliness God bless to all! Have a great day!

Filing a return and issuing participant statements does not make things final. Yes you can change the contribution and amend the return - if the plan allows for the type of contribution you are suggesting (everyone in their own group or at least owners in their own group).

I want to confirm on behalf of FIS that Relius Administration is designed and developed (and this has been confirmed in testing) to LTPT count service for individuals < age 21. If set as an eligibility condition, a participant will have to complete the 2 (or 3) LTPT YOS and attain age 21 to be eligible to enter the plan as a LTPT employee, but the employee does receive LTPT service credit for the years < age 21. Based on this, there should be a different explanation (based on census info or plan specs) for why the participant addressed in this question did not receive credit.

I'm definitely not one to flout the rules and I despise the "no show" jobs whether it's family or Family (if you know what I mean). But it's also not unheard of for an owner and/or spouse to work for quite some time for their own business without taking a paycheck. If the employer can provide evidence the spouse actually did work during that time and just wasn't compensated, then I think making the spouse eligible on the first paycheck isn't unwarranted. But we don't make those calls just like we don't make the calls on whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor. We provide information and the employer and CPA tell us what's what.

I would think that you're subject to the -11g rules, where the increase in benefits must be nondiscriminatory. And another result of the amendment being adopted more than 2.5 months after year end being that you're not going to be able to reflect the benefit increase in the valuation. I just had something like this, where I grumbled, why wasn't the benefit change just made part of the original document signed last month? Because I think then it would have been okay, because a retro-adopted plan is deemed signed on 12/31. Willing to be wrong, though....

And here’s the important idea: Don’t be a do-it-yourselfer. Find a good service provider to guide you in doing things correctly and efficiently and effectively.

Wow, what a needless over complicated provision for such a small amount. Couldn't they just say - If you have an emergency you can take up to $1,000. If you do so you can not do so again from the same plan for 3 years. All the extra stuff is just screaming to mess something up somewhere.

We need to keep in mind that this is an 11(g) amendment adopted on 10/14/2022 after the close of the 2021 plan year and effective retroactively to 1/1/2021 = the beginning of the prior plan year. The OP says the amendment adds employees to the Plan that complete 1 year of service with no further clarification. The employee in question completed 1 year of service for the 2021 plan year. The fact that the employee terminated in the 2022 plan year on 3/1/2022 is not relevant with respect to the 2021 plan year. With an 11(g) amendment, we can pick and choose who gets to participate in the prior plan year and only need to add enough participants to pass coverage. The amendment could have specified additional criteria to restrict who was includable in 2021 but apparently did not do so. Unless there are more facts than have been presented such as the EBP's employee service history questions , this employee should have been included as participating in the 2021 plan year.