austin3515

That's what I do most of the time, with all of the same explanations, but some executives still want it. I've even had business owners want themselves to be the trustees of the trust to give the program more credibility (what do they care, they were never going to take it away anyway). But for sure 8 or 9 out of 10 I am just doing corporate brokerage accounts. It's the last 2 where I figure there must be a solution. It's not that complicated.

There is no lack of trust here, no one is worried about this, they just want to know what the right answer is.

Truth be told this was a question from an auditor I am friends with, so I don't even know the identity! This is what I can tell you. I have been a TPA for about a million years. Partners fund their contributions at any time through the date of their 1040 due date (or partnership return if earlier) and the words "late deposit" never left my lips in those conversations. And I don't think I missed anything by not mentioning it. Tell me I'm wrong :).

Anyone know of a brokerage account solution, no advisor attached, for these types of plans? I need a solution where we can have it registered to the trustee of a rabbi trust. In my experience advisors do not like working on these because the opportunity for accumulation is retty low. So I'm looking for a Fidelity/Charles Schwab type retail account where we can just fill out an application and open the account, no advisor comp. Anyone know of a solution?

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/advisory-opinions/1999-04a I saw this but I cannot figure out where the relevant part is. Anyone? Also this is the 100% owner of the business. I see the point of course about PriceWaterhouseCoopers (just to use an example that makes sense to all of us) withholding partners money and holding onto for it for 6 months... But this is definitely that.

The Applicable DOL Reg: Partners ARE the employer so they have no wages. You can't withhold something from yourself. So pretty clear that they are not subject to this. My question is this: Why can't find anything that says this, like a DOL Notice or an IRS FAQ or an article by a big law firm? Does anyone have anything to point to? I know the reg is pretty clear but this can't be the first time the topic has come up as an interesting question.

I mean I am pretty sure I have done this. The alternative is just not filing the one with <$250K but then you run the risk of getting the letter from the IRS looking for the missing filing. I guess option 3 is to assume "once required to file always required to file" but that hardly seems like a good option. Curious what others have done. I don't have 5500 software in my new position so not sure if its a warning or a filing error. if a filing error than obviously my suggestion would not work (unless filing a paper form).

My understanding is that when a 5500-EZ has less than 250,000 you can mark it as a final 5500, which is what tells the IRS that no filing is due for the following year. I don't see anything in the instructions about this but I think it is better to do this then just not file one in the following year.

BG150 I think I would: 1) File a 5500-SF for the final year that included a non-owner for any portion of the year (i.e., if the non-owner closed their account in 2025, then file an SF for 2025). 2) File a 5500-EZ in 2026, even if under $250K but mark it as a final 5500 (unless assets go over 250K by year end). 3) If a non-owner becomes eligible during 2026 then obviously keep filing SF.

John made me think of a scenario that could stink to high heaven. Owners and family are only employees on 7/1/2026. They are about to hire 10 more employees because they bought another location or something. They amend the plan to add a vesting schedule for everyone eligible on 7/1/2026. OK that would be a problem. I don't think that is normal though, usually there's a one or two HCE's per 20 people or so, and if you did the amendment on that date, as of that date this is a broadly available benefit, and to me you are covered. Again in all my years no one has ever suggested that different vesting schedules is something that has to be BRF tested in a way that the results deteriorate as time goes by.

I feel like it is a pretty normal thing to grandfther everyone in at 100% vesting and then add a vesting schedule for new hires. you can;t amend the old vesting schedule due to cutback rules. Could you forever be required to have immediate vesting (for example if all current employees are HCE's)? That hardly seems fair. Not saying it's not a BRF only that I've never heard of that as an issue for adding a vesting schedule prospectively to new participants. I've only ever heard of a problem going in the other direction (Cutbacks).

What was it the Citgo Doctrine? Or was it the Valero Doctrine? Oh right Chevron 🤣

I can see for sure how including it as a single holding within a CIT is feasible, FWIW. Thanks for posting this though!

I'll be curious to hear Empower and Fidelity's response. If they say this is a no go, then that's the end of that. Have they said anything? This is not a new topic of course.

🙄 Well I can't seem to find a way to rule this out...