Leaderboard

Is everyone who is eligible to defer (regardless of whether or not they elected to) also eligible to receive the safe harbor match? In other words, is the eligibility the same for deferrals and safe harbor match? Or do they have (for example) immediate eligibility for deferrals, but 1 year of service for match? If everyone who could defer would be eligible to receive the match if they deferred, then you are good on the top heavy exemption. However if there is anyone who is eligible to defer but not covered by the match then the plan is not exempt from top heavy, even if no contributions other than deferrals and safe harbor match are actually made. However however if the only employees who are eligible to defer but not receive a match are long-term part-time employees (who are eligible solely because they met the LTPT eligibility criteria) then the plan retains its safe harbor top heavy exemption.

I think the issue is the due date for C corp tax returns changed back in 2016 or so. It used to be they were due 3/15 so 6 months afterwards was 9/15. See this link https://www.cpa-wfy.com/get-ready-businesses-some-filing-due-dates-are-changing/ I quote (bold mine): For many years, C corporation federal income tax returns on Form 1120 were due two and a half months after the end of the corporation’s taxable year (March 15, adjusted for weekends and holidays, for a calendar-year corporation). Form 1120 could be automatically extended for six months (through September 15, adjusted for weekends and holidays, for a calendar-year corporation). However, a law passed last year established new due dates for Form 1120. For tax years beginning after December 31, 2015, the due date is generally moved back one month to three and a half months after the close of the corporation’s tax year (to April 15, adjusted for weekends and holidays, for a calendar-year corporation). So someone taught you a short hand version of the rule and never taught you why is was 3/15 and 9/15. So when the due date of the 1120 changed you didn't pick up on it changing the deduction deadline. Zeller's way of saying it is the better way to teach it and that hasn't ever changed.

You were taught wrong. The due date of the contribution is the due date of the employer's tax return, including extensions. See IRC 404(a)(6).

If this proposal constitutes a form of payment that is not in the plan, the PA will refuse to qualify the DRO. If this is "horse trading", where the participant wants to pay less to the AP, the PA will be indifferent to what label is attached by the participant and AP.

I would agree with Gina to amend the last 5500 that was filed, update it to meet the requirements of a "final return," and attach a PDF statement explaining the plan is/was exempt from the 5500 requirement and why, and that the 5500s were filed in error.

The Internal Revenue Code’s regimes and remedial-amendment periods about whether a plan is tax-qualified assume “the” written plan. ERISA § 404(a)(1)(D) recognizes that a plan’s provisions might be stated by “documents and instruments[.]” Imagine the plan’s sponsor/administrator sends its third-party administrator or recordkeeper an email to inform the service provider that the sponsor has changed the plan’s involuntary-distribution threshold from $5,000 to $7,000, and has changed the plan so a participant loan from a participant’s account less than the plan’s involuntary-distribution threshold does not require a qualified election with the spouse’s consent. Imagine the email’s sender is someone who has authority to amend the plan. Consider whether that email might be a “document[] . . . governing the plan” within ERISA § 404(a)(1)(D)’s meaning. This is not advice to anyone.

I’ve learned that some practitioners worry that some IRS examiners won’t follow the law. But if the IRS (including raising an issue to an examiner’s supervisor, and if that doesn’t work getting Chief Counsel advice) follows the law, the IRS would not assert that a plan is tax-disqualified because the plan allowed a distribution when the plan’s hardship standard was not met unless the evidence shows “the plan administrator ha[d] actual knowledge to the contrary of the employee’s certification[.]” Internal Revenue Code § 401(k)(14)(C) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:26%20section:401%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title26-section401)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true. If a plan’s sponsor or administrator adopts a self-certification claims procedure, one might design the form and procedure not to ask for any unnecessary information. And if one receives extra information, to act on it. I’m aware that plan sponsors and practitioners have a diversity of views about whether to provide self-certification for hardship claims.

Yes, if the document reference is to the account balance.

Self-employed individuals have to complete a deferral election before the end of the plan year. Whatever they put on that election will determine how much their deferral is. The safe harbor non-elective contribution will be 3% of their net earned income. That will be a circular calculation, so it's not generally possible to know exactly how much it will be before the end of the year. If earned income is expected to be well above the 401(a)(17) limit then it might be reasonable to use that. Assuming profit sharing is discretionary, it will be whatever amount the employer decides to allocate, within the constraints of sections 404, 401(a)(4), and 415.