I realize versions of the question have been asked, but I cannot find a specific clear answer. In fact, I have received differing opinions on it from my normal go-tos.

There are four business in question. We are looking at various retirement plan options available. Owners are spread between a married Father and Mother, their Son (over age 21), and the Son’s Wife.  There is no trust involvement, nor is there any buy-sell agreements or options agreements across these businesses.

Here is the ownership structure:

“A”

Father, 1/3

Mother, 1/3

Son, 1/3

“B”

Father, 1/2

Mother, 1/2

“C”

Father, 1/2

Mother, 1/2

“D”

Son, 99%

Son’s Wife, 1%

A, B, and C have several employees. D is a separate business that does not have employees (owner only).  All of my normal resources agree there is no issue with an Affiliated Service Group, leaving the only questions one of ownership control group.

Here is my take:

1. The son would not be attributed ownership of either parent for any of the other companies, as he has less than 50% ownership in A.
2. If 1 is true, a SEP should be allowed in D, with a separate 415 limit available.
3. B and C are certainly a control group.
4. Father and Mother would be attributed each other’s ownership, placing them above the 50% threshold in A to also then require they be attributed the son’s 1/3^rd share, placing the mother and father at 100% effective ownership, making A, B, and C all a combined Control Group, but still leaving D separate.

One TPA has said that #4 is wrong, and that A is not brought into the CG. Other's in my sphere agree with my read as above.

For now, the A/B/C question is moot as we will open the same Plan across each of these anyway. But it matters for future potential changes, as well as needing to know if we are clear to do the SEP in D for the son.

Thanks in advance.

View the full text of this job opportunity

Is this possible?  Another work around we thought of is to exclude HCE's from the safe harbor match and benefit them with a discretionary match.  It seems like just limiting compensation would be easier.

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/advisory-opinions/2025-03a

Do people agree that if a plan is designed as a top-hat plan specifically, the concerns outlined here are not applicable? The Morgan Stanley plan does not sound like a plan exclusively for HCEs and management.  Sounds like a plan offered widely to all advisors.  I assume that is the issue.  And I further assume that because the benefits are paid when vested there is no deferral of income anyway which eliminates concerns about "funding." 

Do I have this about right?

The plan provides a Safe Harbor Non-Elective Contribution (SHNE) and excludes Highly Compensated Employees (HCEs) from safe harbor contribution. In this situation, there are five HCEs in the plan, and the client wishes to provide the SHNE to only two of these HCEs while giving no safe harbor contribution to the remaining three. The question is whether this allocation is allowable under IRS regulations, and if permissible, which specific regulations authorize it. Refer the adoption agreement snip.

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

What is everyone following as far as a retention schedule for distribution information? Meaning, how long are you holding onto copies of outgoing correspondence on plans? 

View the full text of this job opportunity

Are we all agreed that the rule is $145K of FICA wages to be a Highly Paid Individual (or High Earner or whatever your favorite acronym is) for 2026?  I thought I heard something about it being increased for cost-of-living from 2024 to 2025 and that might make it $150K, but I don't see anything official on that.  Thanks.

We don't handle cafeteria plans, and I'm going to refer this client to a local outfit who does, but I'm curious. A PC with NO NHCE's wants to establish a 125 plan for the purpose of having HSA's. Since there are no NHCE's, and they are paid salaries as W-2 employees,  I don't see any problem with this. I don't see how any coverage/nondiscrimination could apply. Am I missing anything?

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

For an age 60-63 catch-up, is 2026’s inflation adjusted amount $12,000 or $11,250?

On the day the Bureau of Labor Statistics released September’s Consumer Price Index measures:

John Feldt said $12,000. https://benefitslink.com/boards/topic/80106-2026-cola-projection-of-dollar-limits/#comment-354029

Mercer said $12,000. https://www.mercer.com/insights/law-and-policy/mercer-projects-2026-retirement-plan-limits/

But Milliman said $11,250. https://www.milliman.com/en/insight/2026-irs-limits-forecast-final-estimates

Can smart BenefitsLink people resolve which is correct?

Here’s the adjustment rule [I.R.C. § 414(v)(2)(E)(i)]:

(E) Adjusted dollar amount. For purposes of subparagraph (B), the adjusted dollar amount is —

(i) in the case of clause (i) of subparagraph (B), the greater of —

(I) $10,000, or [and]

(II) an amount equal to 150 percent of the dollar amount which would be in effect under such clause for 2024 for eligible participants not described in the parenthetical in such clause[.]

If an active (not a 5% owner) participant is 80 years old and dies during the year, does the beneficiary have to take and RMD? The participant is of RMD age but was not required to take them as they were still actively employed.

Participant was 0.3% partner in law firm in 2024. Still working.

No ownership in 2025

Turns 73 during 2025.

Is he required to take an RMD which would be due 4/1/2026?

Interesting situation here. A new plan in 2025. Long story short, they withheld deferrals from many payrolls and did not submit. They have since submitted, using DOL calculator for interest, and will file with the DOL under VFC program. As part of the VFC filing, they will submit a copy of the 5330 proving payment of the interest.

So, must this 2025 5330 filing, for the 2025 year, be submitted electronically? In July of 2025, the IRS said this:

Treas. Reg. 54.6011-3(a) requires a taxpayer to file Form 5330, Return of Excise Taxes Related to Employee Benefit Plans, electronically for taxable years ending on or after December 31, 2023, if the filer is required to file at least 10 returns of any type during the calendar year that the Form 5330 is due. Treas. Reg. 54.6011-3 (b) and Instructions for Form 5330 also provide, on an annual basis, exclusions from electronic filing requirements in cases of undue hardship.

Form 5330 can be filed electronically using the IRS Modernized e-File (MeF) System through an IRS authorized Form 5330 e-file provider. Currently, IRS has only one authorized e-filing provider for the Form 5330. As a result of the lack of authorized e-file providers for the Form 5330, the IRS has determined that a filer is permitted to file a paper Form 5330 for the 2024 taxable year. The filer should document that the reason for not filing electronically and filing a paper Form 5330 is the lack of authorized vendors.

Seems to me that since this 5330 is being filed under the same timeframe and basic circumstances, that this waiver should prove valid and allow paper filing. Thoughts? Thanks.

View the full text of this job opportunity

Have been the EA for about 25 DB plans (mostly stand alone) for a TPA where we billed the TPA after we did the valuation which was a mutual understanding though nothing in writing. For 10 years payments came but early 2024 they stopped and have been sporadic since though valuation work done and forms submitted through 2024 plan year. Last partial payment was in July and outstanding fees are up to $30k, most for 2 plan years. What would be ethical ways to proceed to get paid (assuming will not be doing any further work for this TPA and not suing based on past experience):

a) contact plan sponsors directly regarding the situation,

b) provide names of plans to another TPA with the expectation they would contact the plan sponsors,

c) amend 5500 fililngs for unpaid years (since we have filing authorizations) removing the SB,

d) 1099 the TPA for the $30k,

e) publicly name the TPA (like on this message board) as a warning to others?

Are none, some, or all of these worth a try or are there better options?