Leaderboard

Is the business continuing and he just doesn't have plans right now to make contributions or is there going to be no business going forward. Because the Plan needs a sponsor. FWIW, I've run one person DC plans in retirement for people where it is clear there are no intended contributions. It usually involves a plan investing in non-traditional assets where the fees to administer the Plan, maintain the document, and file are EZ along with potential for IRA audit are cheaper than if the owner paid a custodian a fee to hold non-traditional assets in an IRA. This can have it's own set of issues but sometimes it works. But you do need either a an on going corp to sponsor the plan or a sole-prop with at least enough periodic income to be considered active to sponsor the plan.

There can be reasons for a participant in an employment-based retirement plan to prefer it over an Individual Retirement Account. Among them, opportunities for guarding a retirement asset from some kinds of creditors’ claims might be better with an employment-based plan (even if not ERISA-governed) than an IRA. This might be so not only under bankruptcy law, but also under other laws. As CuseFan suggests, there is no shortcut; one must get into the details of those laws and how they might apply to facts and circumstances the individual plans against. The individual might want not only legal advice but also practical advice across her whole team of advisers, including lawyers (for each topic), certified public accountant, physician, actuary, financial planner, investment adviser, and TPApril. This is not advice to anyone.

We use FTW for documents as well - was a Relius user for years (back to Corbel days) - did not like the switch at first but could not imagine going back now.

If I'm understanding you correctly, your question is about the application of entry dates when determining who is an otherwise excludable employee. The Chief Counsel memo that you referenced essentially says that, in the context of 410(b) and 401(k)(3) (and presumably 401(m)(2) and 401(a)(4) as well, although not explicitly stated), there is more than one way to apply it, so anything reasonable is fine. I don't see why it would be any different for 416, and in the absence of explicit guidance, I am perfectly comfortable using the same interpretation.

Second vote for FTWilliams

I have used FTWilliam, Relius/FIS, Datair, and ASC. Relius/FIS has the most bells and whistles, but I found that we simply didn't use 90% of the features. Also, the system isnt wasn't that user friendly. ASC is decent but clunky. Support staff is great. FTW is very user friendly, and the modules are integrated. They are constantly adding new features. Lacks some options on the 403b side. Great support staff. I prefer FTW, but the details of your practice will dictate what the best fit is for you. All three are better than Datair in my opinion.

justanotheradmin - i did reference it as a DC plan in the original post. You ask good questions. This has always been a 1-person plan. Owner just made their last contribution, there will be no more. The investments are the same as it would be in an IRA because it is a self directed plan with one of the national investment firms. Should they terminate the plan, they will transfer it over in kind to the IRA.

I would argue that in the asset deal scenario it's no different than going on a hiring spree. Employees of the seller are first termed then (if continuing) rehired by the buyer, and the buyer does not acquire the corporate entity (stock) itself. Under that approach, you stick to the standard rule that ALE status is always based on prior-year headcount. So the influx of new employees wouldn't potentially make the buyer an ALE until the next calendar year--and even then only if it averaged 50+ full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) over the course of the whole preceding year. More details: https://www.newfront.com/blog/becoming-an-ale-subject-to-the-aca-employer-mandate-2 Slide summary: 2024 Newfront ACA Employer Mandate & ACA Reporting Guide

Boy sure would be nice if the IRS had clear guidance on M&A and how it affects plans and testing wouldn't it? I think the approach taken is reasonable and would not be challenged by the IRS assuming A now owns all of B or at least enough for a CG to exist in the testing year. I also think testing them separately would be acceptable as well.

I don't know how the companies are set up or related and it matters for your analysis. That being said it sounds like there could possibly be a non-exempt prohibited transaction in there? A lot depends on your specific facts and circumstances. Here are some thoughts: Generally, paying fees to any service provider is a prohibited transaction under ERISA section 404(a)(1). However, there is an exemption 408(b)(2) for reasonable and necessary services for establishment and operation of a plan, so long as no more than reasonable compensation is paid. Reasonable compensation has a specific definition and requires disclosures. If there is certain types of common ownership between the LLC and LLP, there may be an issue with even just hiring the affiliated provider and paying a fee. Regardless of that no fiduciary should be able to exercise discretionary authority to hire itself or increase its own compensation unilaterally. ERISA section 406(b) prevents self-dealing by a fiduciary. You should see an ERISA attorney so your actual facts and circumstances can be considered in light of the rules.

Pooled non-calendar year profit sharing plans are often valued annually on the last day of the plan year. The 401(a)(9) regs address this. You take the balance on the valuation date, add in in contributions from the valuation date to 12/31, subtract distributions from the valuation date to 12/31 and that is your adjusted 12/31 balance for figuring out next year's RMD.