Leaderboard

Private-equity investors often use strategies to order carefully rights and relations regarding investees, and often design these to keep investees separate from one another and from each investor. Beyond carefully defining and allocating each capital interest, profits interest, or income interest, an investor might assert that it is not “a trade or business”, and so is not to be combined with any other investor nor any investee. Don’t get involved in trying to sort out what is or isn’t a § 414(b)-(c)-(m)-(n)-(o) employer. Get your client, preferably with its lawyers and accountants, to instruct you on what you are to assume in performing your services. This is not advice to anyone.

Yes. Just test it for BRF to make sure it does not favor HCEs and you should be fine if the amendment is drafted correctly.

We provide both the tax deduction or the tax credits. We also caveat strongly the client needs to review the information with their tax and/or legal advisor.

The ones I've seen (and it's not a ton) create funds (like a mutual fund) where Acme will pony up a large percentage, but several other people/entities will also contribute to the fund to make the purchase. That fund may own only one business or may own more than one. So, if they own more than one business in a single fund, THAT fund will likely be a controlled group. But probably not across multiple investment funds. I would still have an ERISA attorney earn her pay in deciphering. (This last sentence is advice to everyone.)

I am not terribly familiar with this topic but I know that we have a signed agreement agreement with our 457(b) service provider authorizing them to report the distributions on a W-2. The funds are paid from the 457(b) account directly and do not pass through the employer's accounts.

If they are a controlled group, and it sounds like they probably are, one Plan would be the simple straight forward approach. You can do a 2nd plan but you'll need to test the whole group as one employer if they are a controlled group for both Non-discrimination and BRF.

Under the Treasury’s proposed interpretation, a plan’s sponsor may design a plan to provide only an age 50 catch-up without the age 60-63 catch-up. “The higher applicable dollar catch-up limit for participants attaining age 60 through 63 may, but is not required to be, included in an applicable employer plan. Thus, an applicable employer plan may also be designed to limit the catch-up contributions for those participants to the same applicable dollar catch-up limit that applies for all other catch-up eligible participants.” Catch-up contributions [notice of proposed rulemaking], 90 Fed. Reg. 2645, 2649 fn. 6 (Jan. 13, 2025).

We feel that they are pretty clear, but caveat with "for informational purposes only, not tax advice, etc." After all, this is based on the information we have on file, and the client/CPA may have additional information that would change things.

Thanks!!! In designing the report that’s the deliverable to clients and their CPAs, were there any issues about interpreting the tax law? Or are those provisions of the Internal Revenue Service so clear and unambiguous that there was no need for interpretation? (As you’re smart enough to discern, my interest is in teaching students about work environments beyond law and accounting firms.)

Bundled provider here. We do this for all clients as part of our regular services, no additional fee. I see no disadvantage to doing it. It's very helpful during the sales phase, and both clients and CPAs have been very appreciative. If you collect the necessary information, it's not a heavy lift to provide this service.