§#$%!

Controlled group Thank you. That's what I suspected.

S-corp. sponsors a DB plan and sole-prop (spouse) is an adopting employer of the DB plan. Both make over the compensation limit. If the sole-prop (spouse) is the only entity making/deducting contributions into the DB plan (above the minimum funding requirement), can the S-corp. make the maximum ps contribution ($58k) into a DC plan and not trigger the deduction limit under 404(a)(7)?

I searched but couldn't find anything. I thought their determination would only take a year after the ASPPA article in April 2017. The PBGC was very methodical. They were asking plenty of materials, including the corporate tax returns. The PBGC letter even commented on the type of clients the advisor serviced, assets held under management, and credentials.

The PBGC finally made a determination that the plan sponsor (Investment Advisor) is considered a professional service employer under 4021(c)(2)(A). Further, the sole-owner is a professional individual under 4021(c)(2)(B). It only took the PBGC three years to make the determination since our request.

Plan currently provides SH 401(k) match contribution (100% up to 6%) on a payroll basis. Can the plan be amended mid-year to reduce the match to 100% up to 4% prospectively for the rest of the year?

Never heard this type of corporation. How does this work when it comes to retirement plans (i.e., sponsorship, wages, etc.)? I'm taking over qualified retirement plans for a one-person plan. From what I've read, the corporation is established and employs the person. The employee is then paid by the corporation. I'm assuming the corporation sponsors the plan. Who owns the corporation? Thanks

I just found out that a sole-proprietor who sponsors a defined benefit plan died in 2015 accruing 1,000 hours. The plan was effective in 2014. Can the executor of the decesased sponsor waive the minimum funding requirement in the year of death of the plan sponsor?

I thought the IRS must rely on the lastest DL. Am I wrong with that assumption? Also, I thought only the DOL can request for prior documents in an audit.

Took over a first year cb plan (2012) where the interest credit is defined to be actual return on assets. The resulting deduction limit is far less than the contribution credit since the IC is zero and the Plan does not have a floor other than IC cannot be zero. Is there a way to increase the deduction limit equal to the contribution credit for 2012? Tried at-risk but it's not enough. Plus, there's no prior service cost so I have no FT. Any ideas?

Yes death ben is pvab. I'll have to look at the alternative forms.

Particpant, whose RMD started in 2011, died in 2012. How do I determine the PVAB payable to beneficiaries in 2013? Do I use AE to determine the PVAB at death and have it accrue interest (AE) to a payment date without regards to mortality? Sorry for being vague but not sure how to post this question. Thanks

Should I be using a setback of 6 for lump sum purposes, which I think was a female rate on the unisex table?

It's been a long time since I determined a PBGC annuity factor at 120% and I can't remember if there was a setback on UP-1984 unisex. Can someone confirm that I'm on the right track? Using a rate of 4.75%, I get a factor of 11.1038 at 65 using a setback of 6. Thanks

Took over a frozen plan and the plan has $1.231M in prepaid and loss of $1.491M. EOY PBO is $1.243M and assets are $0.983M. Shoud we continue carrying those liabilities forward? The accountant didn't like the suggestion to have it expensed.

Gut feel/vague recollection and some degree of reasoning... I think I remember doing amendments for GUST restatements that looked a lot like this language, because the IRS required them, but I also think I was told by our then-document provider that this didn't specifically authorize extra contributions; they just wanted the gateway language in the plan. I think the problem here is that it just says you have to meet the gateway, not how - you have the option to reduce HCE contributions to 9%. So it's not definitely determinable. By contrast, if you look at the top heavy language in any plan, I'm quite sure it will say something like (as ours do): This minimum allocation shall be made even though, under other Plan provisions, the Participant would not otherwise be entitled to receive an allocation, or would have received a lesser allocation for the Plan Year because of: (i) the Participant's failure to complete 1,000 hours of service (or any equivalent provided in the Plan); (ii) the Participant's failure to make mandatory employee contributions to the Plan; or (iii) compensation less than a stated amount. So it's very specific about the effective override of the service requirement. The gateway language that we're discussing here doesn't say that. FWIW, our current Fort William document has this great language that says we can waive allocation requirements (last day/1000 hours) if a participant is getting another 'er contribution; that's in the basic plan document. The adoption agreement has a reference to the BPD "...for 'failsafe' rules regarding the gateway test." There is no definition of the gateway test that I can find. I saw that in my review since we're considering moving to Ft. William.