msmith

Santo - if you are just the TPA, you should not be providing any investment advice, as to whether or not it is a good investment for the Plan - as a whole. That is the F/A's job. You can comment on the bonding issue.

I agree with @ratherbereading. If it is payroll period basis, I only look to make sure the amount has not violated the annual compensation limit. Other, we disclose that we are not responsible for the payroll period Match calculation.

You would think that Congress has more pressing issues to deal with than this type of legislation.

Client just forwarded IRS letter, for Calendar Year 2022 plan, that was filed in May 2023 (before July 31 due date). The letter stated that the Extension was denied due to an untimely filing.

We have had several this year, for the 12/31/2022 Plan Year.

Thank you, John. That was my thought. But great to have confirmation.

This is just a Profit Sharing plan - Sole-Proprietor (only participant), with Schedule C net profit of $105,533. After reductions, compensation used for PS purposes is $98,077.33. If we wanted to fund 100% of compensation, do we have to worry about deductibility?

Earlier this year, I had the same situation and deposited the Profit Sharing after the Asset Sale date. Buyer did not object.

Payroll error seems more like an amended W-2 and not a 1099-R issue.

I agree 100% with Paul I. Not willing to risk my credentials for outright fraud. Ethics is a big factor in how this is reconciled.

Is it feasible for a Plan Sponsor to opt out of Roth Deferrals (and Catch-ups altogether) and advise participants to seek advice on establishing a Roth IRA?

We not longer use the FIS VS - but when we did, I had a conversion with one of their Legal Staff. Best to restate to add Roth, as Roth impact language throughout the document. As with all document providers, there is no amendment yet for SECURE 2.0 - at least, not that I am aware of any. Adding Roth would be a discretionary Amendment. Why not wait until later in 2023 and maybe, we will have SECURE 2.0 language - as a tack on Amendment.

For the CCYLE 3 Restatements, we went from FIS/Relius Volume Submitter to ASC (non-standardized Adoption Agreement). While the Relius document had default language that a "discretionary" Safe Harbor Non-Elective could be contributed to HCE's, the ASC Adoption Agreement required a special check off that was missed for the 12/31/2022 Plan Year. Is a retroactive Amendment permitted to add HCE's as eligible for the 2022 Safe Harbor contribution?

Others employees with at least 800 hours of service entered on 07/01/2022. The Amendment applied to all employees going forward, effective as of 07/01/2022. with at least 800 hours of service in a 12 consecutive month period.

Calendar Year Plan Effective 07/01/2022, the hours requirement for eligibility was changed from 1,000 hours to 800 hours in a 12 consecutive month period. Employee was credited with more than 800 hours in the 2021 Plan Year, but is under 800 hours for the 2022 Plan Year. I would think she is not eligible - but software says differently.