Leaderboard

As of right now, it looks like the article is running under the title "America’s Booming Solo Workers Embrace $72,000 Tax Shelter" Besides Form 5500, possible pain points include: Capturing any non-owner employees who are required to be covered (including long-term part-time employees) Analysis of related employers which could result in a controlled group or affiliated service group With respect to an unincorporated business, calculation of net earned income, both for purposes of limiting contributions to 100% of compensation and deduction of employer contributions to 25% of compensation Applying limitations on distributions Applying mandatory tax withholding on distributions Reporting distributions on Form 1099-R Applying a plan's loan provisions

In addition to the issues mentioned by @C. B. Zeller, (the control group / affiliated service group / related employer group issue is so common!) some what I see: Disregard for deposit timing, both for deferrals, and Over contributions thinking it can count towards a future year even though the deposit occurs this year. - think throwing in an extra $100,000 because they have the cash available and want it to grow As well as disregard for limits, such as depositing up to what they think is the maximum, even though the W-2 compensation they have paid themselves(or a covered spouse) is substantially lower. Investments in unusual assets with no additional compliance such as an independent appraisal for valuation Assets/accounts titled to the business rather than the plan name when they were intended to be for the plan Starting more than one plan every time they get a new account or advisor. Or thinking they have more than one plan when really a new doc with a new account might be a restatement of the older document, but they don't realize it Compensation not being eligible - thinking that profit and loss is enough, and not having earned income, but still making contributions Failure to make any contributions - for 5, 10+ years(sometimes nothing beyond the first year) at that point the plan isn't really a plan and should be terminated and closed

As stated already, I think the majority of "solo 401ks" are created without a TPA, but via a financial advisor or CPA. Only after issues arise, all those already mentioned, does a TPA/Attorney get involved. Recently, I had one referred by a CPA where his client thought he had a SEP not a 401k plan, for over 15 years. Another was set up without anyone asking the ownership/controlled group question. I think these plans are more likely to have alternative investments which can bring more unknown complications. They seem simple to market and run, until they are not.

Could not agree more. However, I believe we are going to see more issues as AI becomes more prevalent with the "do-it-yourselfers". We've referred a handful of cases over the past several months to ERISA Attorney's for correction of a host of issues when the "do-it-yourselfer", or their other "professional advisor", realizes there is an issue.

Not that more is needed, I often come across plan documents not being up to date, no Cycle 3, sometimes no Cycle 2. I often find these are set-up without a TPA, generally with an investment advisor and accountant.

One additional step the client may want to do is immediately on making the After Tax Contribution, convert it to Roth so that there is no tax on the earnings. It also might be good reinforcement to tell the client although you contributed $180,000 in this example, only report and deduct $100,000 on the 1040.

Speaking of thinking, Peter - that's a great thought of yours there that *any* late deposit brings questions of 401(a)(2). Why look for more obscure references of what's gone wrong, when "page one of the 400s" has it right there for you? 🤔 (unless one suggests the undeposited amounts aren't yet plan assets to divert anywhere else)

Agreed, Peter - It's the prohibited transaction rules (the business holding onto what should be plan money) that make important the deferral deposit timing in non-Title I plans.

All correct. No requirement on the 6%. (After all, any company can have employees make after-tax contributions independent of employer contributions.)

Okay, the idea here is that she wants to get to her DC annual additions maximum, which will likely exceed the sum of the deferral max and then the 6% DC allocation. So she does the rest as employee after-tax. as having no employees means the ACP test is passed. As for the backdoor part of the Roth, that's just a Roth conversion of some/any of the total, including the employee after-tax, so that she's basically gotten the full DC max and it's all/some become part of a Roth account within the plan.

I do not think you can formally state two groups, those employed 2/15/PY+1 and those not, because a person's grouping is not determinable by PYE. Draw a parallel to changing an HCE top-paid group election after PYE, where the result changes a person's status under the plan, which is impermissible. Using individual allocation groups in the document but in practice determining two allocation groups by your desired methodology is the best way to accomplish what they want IMHO and I think that of most others. If said 2/15 fell on a weekend or holiday and/or for whatever reason the plan sponsor wanted to accelerate or delay that date, individual groups compared to hardcoding, even if such was permissible, makes administration accommodating. Just because the document allows for flexibility doesn't mean it needs to be used. Finally, you mention a parent and a lot of subsidiaries all with their own plans with separate RKs and independent testing. Is no one concerned about testing in consideration of the control group?