Is there a specific deadline for requesting a determination letter for the initial qualification of a new individually designed plan?

The instructions to Form 5300 do not appear to contain a deadline, nor does Rev. Proc. 2022-4. By contrast, there are specific deadlines for determination applications for merged plans.

Hi all- looking for some guidance. I have a FICA Alt plan established under a 457plan. The employer made 3 contributions (contributions were done in 2022 and just recently) for an employee who was no longer eligible to participate in the plan. Can the employer request the funds back and can we just send the funds back to them. I wasn't sure if that was allowed for FICA Alt plans. Any guidance would be appreciated. 

Hypothetical:  Employer A's cafeteria plan provides for immediate entry (i.e., no waiting period) into plan.  Employer A is acquiring a new company, Seller, whose cafeteria plan provides for a 60-day waiting period.  The vast majority of highly compensated employees are employed by Employer A.  For a number of reasons, Employer A wants to keep this eligibility structure for a while, say, six months.

Assume that Employer A is taking the conservative approach that this violates the eligibility portion of the cafeteria plan nondiscrimination tests.  (I recognize that there are those in this forum that take the very reasonable position that this structure would not violate these tests because it is the underlying benefit that has a waiting period, not the cafeteria plan.)

My questions are two-fold:

1-What highly compensated employees would be affected (i.e., incur extra taxes) by this nondiscrimination failure?  Just ones who are hired by Employer A during the six month period and who can enroll in plan without the waiting period?  All highly compensated employees who elected to pay for qualified benefits on a pre-tax basis? All highly compensated employees whether or not they elected to do so?  What if no employee is hired at Seller during that period?

2-For those who are affected, for what amount will they be subject to extra taxes?  Is it based on their full election for the year or for only the two-month waiting period that they are not subject to?

Thanks!

If my TPA business is in North Carolina, or if I have employees working from home there, can I use the Ida extension for my clients who are nationwide?

2020 filed Form 5500-SF with Schedule SB as the owner had an employee; employee terminated in 2021, not vested.

Participant count at 12/31/2021 therefore is 1, the owner.

Do we file 5500-SF or 5500-EZ as a 1 participant plan??

Hey folks!

I'm attending ASPPA's annual conference for the first time in 15 years. I've been advised that dress code is "Business casual". are Jeans and a nice shirt ok? Looking for some general guidelines so I don't stick out too much. I usually work from home and doubt leggings and a funny T shirt are welcome

Looking forward to potentially meeting some of you folks as well!

Thanks,

Vicki

With Compliance testing what if someone changes salary mid year? Which Salary is used for compliance testing and for determining NHCE and HCE thresholds? Is the salary used the one at the end of the year to determine they pass the ADP, ACP and top heavy requirements? 

Also in this same question does a plan have to pass compliance testing at each point during the year, or only at year end?

Employer (S-Corp) extended its 2021 Tax Return to 9/15/2022, however filed it in April.

In March, 2022 the Employer deposited its Safe Harbor Matching (ADP) contribution for the 2021 Plan Year. This contribution was deducted on its 2021 tax returns.

On September 15, 2022 the Employer deposited its Safe Harbor Matching contribution for the 2021 Plan Year and since it had already deposited the requisite ADP Safe Harbor Match would like to deem it the ACP Safe Harbor Match (as permitted by the Plan).  Q: Can this contribution be deducted on the business' 2022 tax returns or must the 2021 returns be amended to capture the deduction? The amount is well below 404 deduction limits and it is anticipated it will be well below the 2022 404 deduction limit if added to the 2022 plan year contributions.

Plan has 1 year of service requirement, and shifts eligibility computation period to calendar year after initial computation period.

Employee hired on March 1, 2022 and then terminates on May 1, 2022.  During that time period, worked 250 hours.

Employee is rehired on June 1, 2023 (not 2022, as was mistakenly stated in my original post).  

Does the eligibility computation period still shift to calendar year, even though rehire happens outside the initial 12 month period?  

I don't find this clearly addressed in the regs.  It seems the better approach is to shift to calendar year, but is not clear.

We have a consultant who came to us who wanted to start a 401(k).  Technically he doesn't have a company, it's just him getting 1099 income for consulting.  Can someone under that circumstance start a solo 401(k) Plan and file it under their SSN?  For some reason they don't want to do a SEP (haven't gotten a straight answer as to why).

Thanks!

Is there a codified rubric that says how IRS PNs must be assigned?

I have a MEP, do I have to have a PN that starts with a 3?

Where is the written guidance?

It is my understanding that the late adoption of the Cycle 3 restatement results in the plan losing its ability to rely on the preapproved document's IRS letter and the plan becomes individually designed beginning 8/1/2022.  Further, this can be self-corrected under EPCRS so long as all of the requirements for self-correction are satisfied and the individually designed plan is compliant as an IDP.  The employer may then rely on the preapproved document's IRS letter.  My question relates to timing.  It appears you must first correct any plan document failures then adopt a new Cycle 3 document.  

Assume the client presents us with a Cycle 3 document effective 1/1/2022 and signed 8/31/2022.  We review the prior document and find it is in compliance as an individually designed plan.  Besides documenting in a Board resolution the employer's intention to self-correct what additional steps, if any, must be taken?  

I apprecate your input.  Thanks!

We have had an unusual situation posed to us as a hypothetical issue, although I'm pretty nearly certain it is real - pretty hard to dream this up. A group of several large 403(b) plans (not a controlled group or affiliated services group) that were set up with intentionally identical provisions. The 403(b) documents required a Year of Service to be eligible for employer contributions. Plan uses 1,000 hours for a Year of Service, measures the initial computation period from date of hire to the end of the 12-month period. So far, so good.

However, no election was made in the adoption agreement as to whether subsequent eligibility periods switch to plan year, or remain on anniversary years. The adoption agreement is clear - one or the other should be chosen. But it wasn't.

The plans have been ADMINISTERED with subsequent eligibility periods changing to plan year. Given that there is an omission in the adoption agreement, this is good, as it is more favorable to employees (potentially earlier eligibility for employer contributions).

I don't believe this is a "document failure" in the technical sense for purposes of RP 2021-30. It doesn't, "on its face" violate a requirement of 403(b), I don't think. Thoughts on this?

Ignoring that aspect, and pushing a tenuous position - when the plan is amended to correct this, is a SMM necessary? Obviously, the safe and solid answer is "yes." But is there a valid argument to be made that since the employees have been treated consistently under the "change to plan year" option, that there's no material change that actually affects them?

Beyond that, there's no specific penalty for failure to provide an SMM.

I understand this is legal counsel territory, and that is what we are recommending.  However, curious as to thoughts on this, and the "risk" factor in taking the aggressive approach.

A client asked about making prevailing wage contributions to a 401(k) instead of paying wages.  It makes sense to save the FICA tax.  So there is no eligibility requirement, no allocation conditions, 100% vested and can be used to offset the employer profit sharing allocation if there is one.  I assume it can be included in nondiscrimination testing since it can offset PS. 

Of course this feature must be added in the Adoption Agreement.  My question is what else has to be done?  The client is already calculating the amount and paying as wages.  Does this change need to be in the service contract they are serving, the affected employees notified it will no longer be in wages?  Or can our client just make this change? 

I told the client to check with their legal counsel and/or tax advisor.  As far as us as TPA - it's pretty easy.

Tom

Hi. My employer offers multiple health plan options to employees. The employer is considering amending the health plan to prevent employees from making a mid-year change (moving from one plan to another) even if the employee has a Qualifying Event. The employer wants to avoid the opportunity for adverse selection. Is it permissible for an employer to implement a ban like this (where an employee, with a valid QE, is not permitted from moving from say the employer's Gold plan to the Silver plan)?

New  client comes to us and asks us the establish a 401(k) SH plan for them.  We generated the documents, safe harbor effective January 1, 2022 and client executed the document. 

We just learned that advisor aware that the client already has a 401k plan, which is not safe harbor.  

What options do we have now?  Can a client sponsor two 401k plans in the same year ( one safe harbor and one non-safe harbor)?

Curious to see if people are seeing the same thing as me with TIAA CREF.  I swear they are doing loan reporting for participant loans (NOT Plan Loans--if you work with TIAA you know there is a distinction) the wrong way.  As far as I can tell this is what they are doing:

1) Including deemed distributed loans in the ending balance of participant loans

2) Reporting loan offsets as deemed distributions.  Loan offsets of course should be included in the regular distribution item. 

I hope I'm wrong, but honest to goodness I'm pretty certain they are messing it up. And you would never know it unless you really dig (I did not because I had faith in TIAA, but the auditor is digging, and by golly I think they are correct).

Quick question regarding the PBGC payment.  I know it's due by 10/17/22 this year, my question is:

1) Does it have to be received by the PBGC by that date

or

2) Does it have to be postmarked that date

Thanks!  Have a few that waited till the last minute, so have to let them know if they have to overnight the check or just get it in the miail

I don't think I've seen any discussion on this...the notice says that the excise tax will not apply for distributions not taken in 2021 or 2022 under the 10 year rule. 

But I don't think they said when those distributions must be taken - that is, do they get pushed to 2023, or do you do the RMDs over the remaining 10 years, or what? Or did I miss something? The notice makes reference to the intent to publish final regs and I guess that's where the answers will lie. Seems weirdly incomplete though.

Hi

Not a 401k expert (barely novice).

Looking at a plan for 2020 and 2021.

Both years had deferrals deposited late. No VFCP calculations were made nor any adjustments deposited into participant accounts.

No 5530s filed.

How can this be corrected?

Thanks