Leaderboard

“A partner’s distributive share of any item or class of items of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit of the partnership shall be determined by the partnership agreement, unless otherwise provided by section 704 and paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.” 26 C.F.R. § 1.704-1(a) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/part-1/section-1.704-1#p-1.704-1(a). A partnership agreement of a professional-services firm, especially an accounting or law firm, often includes allocations with formulas designed so an allocation regarding the firm’s pension expense approximates the expense attributable to each individual partner. For pension expense attributable to people other than partners and their beneficiaries, an allocation might be general regarding a whole firm or a whole department of a firm, or might be particular regarding those associates and other employees accounted for in the partner’s cost structure.

Without seeing the plan document, I agree that Ascensus is probably correct (especially if its their document). That said, if the document allows for a truly discretionary match, you could make the match 0% on the first 4% deferred, and 100% on the next 2% deferred. You would need to BRF and ACP test it, but its possible.

If you are intending to keep the discretionary match under the safe harbor rules, yes. Otherwise I agree with RBG.

If you have a tiered match, it has to decrease as the tier increases so matching the first 4% at 0 and then the next 2% at any rate is not allowed.

Yes, but only if the plan provides for anniversary date eligibility on-going (at least for part-timers). The problem with that is that the plan administrator must track eligibility computation periods potentially ending on 365 different days. None of our plan sponsors want to do that.

And I with your analysis. Pay particular attention to the section discussing off-calendar year plans - and based on doing it as the OP says, the IRS confirmed that an LTPT could have actually become eligible in 2023. It is specifically because of the flip from anniversary date to plan year that this occurs.... You use the normal eligibility computation period per the plan. If it flips to plan year, the OP is correct.

yo creo que si, it requires modifications on the partnership agreement level.

@jsample technically you are correct that a fee can be charged to the employer. Practically, with our clients, if we told our clients we would charge our standard distribution fees for per payment because a participant took 4 very small payments for an undocumented "emergency", they would not agree to pay it and would think we were crazy for suggesting it.

Question - have you ever had a SAR filing date questioned by a regulatory authority or their auditor/investigator? I frankly can't imagine this being an issue in this situation. Wouldn't cause me any sleepless nights, at least...😁

There is no reference to the date of the actual filing of the 5500 in the reg. The reg is clear that if there is a valid extension (i.e., the extension was requested before the original due date) then the SAR is due 2 months from the end of the extension period. For a calendar year plan, this is December 15th. ERISA § 2520.104b-10(c) reads: When to furnish. Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (c), the summary annual report required by paragraph (a) of this section shall be furnished within nine months after the close of the plan year. (1) In the case of a welfare plan described in § 2520.104-43 of this part, such furnishing shall take place within 9 months after the close of the fiscal year of the trust or other entity which files the annual report under § 2520.104a-6 of this part. (2) When an extension of time in which to file an annual report has been granted by the Internal Revenue Service, such furnishing shall take place within 2 months after the close of the period for which the extension was granted.