austin3515

@Paul I I think we are saying the same thing. if someone needed to be reported as an A in 2022, and closed their account in 2024, to use DFVC you are required to report the A in 2022 and the D in 2024 because as of the due date of the 2022 5500, they had not yet closed their account. I was saying the logic referenced is reasonable, but if you want to qualify for the letter of the law under DFVC you can't do it. And I gather it won't save you any time anyway. I think we all agree at the end of the day the SSA really just wants to know as of today who has balances out there. A client might choose to take certain liberties and it would be challenging for me to object too strenuously. I think that is what I mean by reasonable.

When Not To Report a Participant A participant who has not been previously reported is not required to be reported on Form 8955-SSA if, before the date the Form 8955-SSA is required to be filed (including any extension of time to file), the participant: https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i8955ssa I mean what you are saying sounds reasonable of course, no argument there.

🤔 Whoopsies

Sound use of taxpayer dollars! Out of spite alone I would use DFVC if I ever had to do 10 years worth!

Honestly that I do not like at all. If they are an HCE it's a total no go. You really never want provisions in your plan that pick out your favorite employees. How do you word the amendment? "Floor supervisors hired in September 2026 have the special privilege of rolling over loans"? I would suggest allowing anyone to roll loans over. That way it is in the SPD, and theoretically everyone knows about it, and no one of course will ever do it. Maybe remove the provision in a couple of years. But I wouldn't do it just for this one person. If your eligibility is more than immediate, you should let people know they can do rollovers when hired even if not yet eligible (assuming that is what your document says). You can;t add this special provision and just not tell people about until its too late to have any value for them. You could tell tell people 5 times about this option and they probably still won't do it. By the way, the prior employer will almost definitely not work with you on this. So you might be willing to accept it but they may not be willing to transfer it. I have literally only ever seen this done in M&A situations because both sides have a vested interest in doing this. I have a workaround for you: 1) Participant rolls his entire balance into your Plan. 2) They immediately take a loan for the same balance 3) They deposit the proceeds to an IRA and report repayment on their 1040.

I don't know that I necessarily even knew DFVC was a thing for 8955-SSA's... Good to know!

I cannot stress enough that this is not advice, but perhaps you would consider filing one 8955-SSA for 2025 reporting all of the A's on a cumuative basis on one form. I would never do such a thing of course. But it strikes me as getting the SSA where they want to be so perhaps they would be just fine with getting the data in that manner. I've never asked... If I was the SSA it might occur to me that there is no value in you filing someone on a 2022 8955-SSA as an A, and then reporting them as a D on the 2024 SSA.

i am in the middle of the same thing. Company A boiught Company B (asset sale with no merger). They do not want to have a loan feature but also do not want to "stick it" to their new employees. So this plan will not offer new loans but will offer the option to roll loans in. Perfectly normal, and no reason for any concern in my opinion.

The trouble with not using Excel as I see it is: 1) Goal seek. How much 401k can an HCE contribute without failing testing? Goal seek! How much profit sharing does Suzie need to get an EBAR of 7.932? Goal Seek! 2) Also, instant result updating. If I change profit sharing in Excel, the EBAR recalcs instantly and my pass/fail formula updates instantly. In these software programs, you update profit sharing, you have to repost in one way or another, and then run compliance testing reports. Just a couple of minutes but if you're trying to hone in on that perfect scenario it can be maddening. These larger systems do not lend themselves to either one of those tools. Therefore, I use Excel to find my scenario, and then (in my case) use FT to verify my results are accurate. I actually like FT a lot. Aside from the fact that you cannot choose different interest rates for pre and post, their system does everything it needs to for Rate Group Testing.

If it were me, I would tell them that any W-2 wages he receives from his date of termination through the later of a) the last day of the plan year; or b) 2.5 months from his date of termination, would be eligible compensation. Anything after that is excluded by the 415 regs. You should check for precise wording in your basic plan document, i was going off of memory. It will be in the 415 Compensation definition. This assumes there is not some other exclusion applicable to that compensation, for example the document might just outright exclude any post-severance compensation. There should be a section of the AA that asks about post-severance compensation.

Funny I just switched back to the EOB about a month ago. I really missed it. I did not care for having to choose publications at Erisapedia, I want that one stop shopping text/ I still use the ask the author service. I was intrigued by the EOB AI thing but not so much that I wanted to ask my boss for another $700 a year. Apparently money doesn’t grow on trees. Who knew? rally close call though. Derrin and Ilene really do a phenomenal job of simplifying explanations.

I'm not familiar with securities laws but I'm very familiar with multiple employer plans. The nondiscrimination rules apply separately to each employer, but thankfully this Plan would be exempt from all testing. The OP did not mention but I am under the assumption that there are only partners in the partnership and no employees.

If the Partners contributed to the plan sponsored by the sole proprietorship in 2025 then yes they could in my opinion. SECURE 2.0 makes it clear you can amend for failures like this. They cannot retroactively adopt the Plan though and make contributions today for 2025. Retroactively adopting a 401(k) plan to a prior year is baazarly limited exclusively to Schedule C sole proprietors with no other EMPLOYEES (i.e., if they had employees who were not eligible, retroactive adoption is not available). Let's say in April 2026 Partners contributed to the Schedule C's 401(k) Plan. Based on the foregoing that seems way to aggressive even under SECURE 2.0 EPCRS expansions. They can of course adopt a profit sharing plan though. I'm not sure the existence of a controlled group changes things, personally. If the Sole Proprietor is a 50/50 Partner in some other venture, they could of course sponsor a single 401k plan. But I'd be curious to know why @Peter Gulia is asking :).

The Union portion of the Plan does have ADP testing first of all. The Union is not covered by the safe harbor so ADP testing is required. Union plans are exempt from ACP testing altogether (the collective bargaining process is the protection for the NHCE's on the match). For the non-union, you have no NHCEs and so all testing is passed by default. You can go hog wild, 415 max for everyone, and there's not a darn thing in the Internal Revenue Code to stop you.

As this Cycle 2 deadline is approaching, I am really very curious to know if others are addressing this issue. I believe this is going to be a very significant change that is under-appreciated today.