Leaderboard

Contact John Hancock for a source correction. It's not that complicated and they might even be able to do it as of the deposit date so the earnings work out right. Talk to your account rep, they can probably walk you through it.

Yes then to use an example if you have 1 HCE and 3 NHCs with the HCE and 2 NHCEs are getting 7% and one NHCE getting 3% they all are "benefiting" as they all got actual dollars. But if you are testing on a contribution basis then anyone getting less than 7% is not benefit for 401(a)(4) and your ratio would be less than 70%. So you can either test on a benefits basis and see if it passes (assuming you can pass all tests for this), you have fail safe language in the document which will pull in enough people at 7% to get to you to 70%, or if no fail safe an -(11)(g) amendment to pick an chose who gets the extra to get you to 70%.

Well, need to make sure the bosses and the clients are happy. We still have agents we work with that are actively selling them.

Just to be clear for anyone reading who hasn't encountered this - in this case there is nothing to actually move. The money gets recoded as a different type. Sometimes folks think investments will actually be liquidated and reinvested, and that is not the case if clear instructions are given and the recordkeeper (Hancock) does it correctly.

Asking for modern software for a 412(e)(3) strikes me as ironic.

that's a helpful way to frame it, thanks.

Nope, no problem extending and then not filing. Extension simply extends the due date if you are required to file.

In the 5500-SF instructions, "What to File", it says, "Plans required to file an annual return/report that meet all of the conditions for filing the Form 5500-SF may complete and file the Form 5500-SF in accordance with its instructions." There are a lot of "musts" in the instructions, but here they use "may". Is there any reason a small plan filer that is otherwise eligible to file a 5500-SF cannot choose to file a 5500 with Schedule I?

Yes, that is correct. Assuming that the participant is past his required beginning date, a Roth RMD was required for 2023 but never again until after the participant's death.

Also, you seem to be asking about two different issues combined into one mashed question. One has to do with contribution allocation entitlement for the year of retirement - do they get or not get a match for that year? The other is a matter of ownership (vesting) with respect to their employer contribution account balances, are they entitled to 100% or only some lesser percentage? As Bill noted, each of these should (must) be spelled out by the terms of the plan document.

The document should outline if there are exceptions to the last day rule for retirement, death, and disability.

Always do the right thing. In addition, be willing to help the client (or the accountant) solve their problem but never let their problem become your problem.