Bird

No. A SIMPLE IRA is just a special kind of IRA, and it effectively becomes a regular IRA after the 2 year initial period (although "SIMPLE" will remain on the registration). The sponsor would have no control over forcing employees into the IRAs and no control once money is in. Don't forget you can't, or aren't supposed to, have a SIMPLE IRA and qualified plan in the same calendar year.

I'd cite the plan doc allocation provisions.

I agree with your take - don't need it if a plan is with a recordkeeper and they are doing tax reporting (1099-Rs,945s). Do need it otherwise.

Nothing to do with the 5500. That has the sponsor ID. I am (was) talking about the plan id.

Yes. This is a case of doing whatever is easiest. Throwing them in the trash would be ok except that whatever computer spit them out will do it again.

It turns out that not only did we change the name thru the procedure mentioned, but did have activity not that long ago, so...never mind, all good (sigh).

Old instructions for changing a plan name or address said to send a letter or fax to the office that issued the EIN, and indeed there were several offices for various geographic areas. Nowadays, we get EINs online. There is a single fax number and address (Cincinnati) on the newest instructions if you want to get an EIN that way; not sure if that would work for a change. Further muddling things is the fact that this particular EIN has likely been de-activated, with no activity since 2017. The address for re-activation is in Ogden UT (different fax from the Cincy address for changes). Any experience with changes and reactivations at the same time? After googling all of this for an hour, I'm inclined to just get a new number.

Based on what you presented, I would say yes. I am curious about that language as it would appear to discriminate in favor of trustees who are often HCEs.

I think you left something out. Are you trying to make it a SH or is it already SH?

Some years ago we had a plan with this situation and decided that, because it was a required contribution, it could be self-corrected by depositing the money now with earnings. I don't recall if there was a clear example like this in EPCRS or if it was a stretch.

Well they can't deduct it if the contributions are made after the due date of the tax return for the year of the contribution.

I haven't done a TB plan in years but am sure if you limit the contribution to 100% of pay - which you must - then no further testing is necessary.

We also use the first day of the year in which the restatement occurs. We use FTW and that's what is generally recommended by them. Honestly I don't think it matters as long as it is not after the deadline (i.e. you could use 7/1 if that's the date it was signed). The effective dates of the required changes are buried in the doc.

To be clear, this was a theoretical exercise. We either have failsafe language or would amend to bring folks in, in a timely manner. But if you fail 410b when using a safe harbor allocation formula, the first step would be to fix the 410b failure. Not sure, never had to do it.

A target benefit formula is a safe harbor formula, just like a pro-rata or integrated PS allocation. 401a4 is deemed to be satisfied in a safe harbor allocation. 410b is the issue if you have an hours/last day requirement that is keeping someone out. We would generally fix that by bringing people in as needed to pass 410b, using the plan's allocation formula. I guess you could ignore the formula and general test everything, in which case then an 11-g amendment would be required. (Are you testing on an allocation or benefits basis? I'm not sure if it makes sense that you would pass with a lower amount on a benefits basis but that is a side issue.) But why on earth would you go there - general testing - when the money is in the plan already, and you pass 410b by virtue of bringing an HCE back in? Yes, it is a problem that there is no amendment, but I would rather take a risk of trying to explain that to an auditor and beg for mercy (are they going to DQ a plan because someone got what they needed to pass testing, even though the plan said they weren't supposed to get anything?!), than to take money away 3 or 4 years after the fact and general test and explain that - again without a timely amendment. And you would presumably re-do vals from 2018 forward, changing gains and losses if it is pooled (or if self-directed taking money away)? Ugh. Why look for trouble and make everybody's life miserable?

What I'm saying is that you see the problem as the fact that they gave the rank and file person a regular allocation, as if s/he worked 1000 hours. But if they didn't, then the fix would be to in fact give that person a regular allocation. So the problem isn't the allocation, it is the lack of an amendment. They got to the right place. I'm not sure I would be going back to 2018 looking for problems in the first place, and having found it, not sure I would do anything other than point out that the allocation was ok but there should have been an amendment to justify it. And then I'd ask if they wanted to spend $$ to fix it. 2020 as originally posted is a bigger problem.

Is there 410(b) failsafe language that says you have to bring in NHCEs to pass? If not, wouldn't that be the solution?

The IRS will have deactivated the TIN it issued in 2006. But that's not the problem here; the problem is that the two financial institutions have two different numbers and can't ACAT the assets. I'd probably go with the one that the financial institution has from 2006, and worry about re-activating it later. Deactivated doesn't mean it doesn't exist or has been assigned somewhere else, although I suppose eventually they recycle numbers. See link below to reactivate. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/how-to-obtain-or-re-establish-an-ein-for-a-retirement-plan-trust

Going off-topic, sort of, but back in the days when we submitted for favorable letters on termination, we had checked on the 5310 that there would be in-kind transfers. This got the IRS' attention and they asked exactly what would be transferred. I told them mutual funds and securities, and they said "oh we don't consider that an in-kind transfer" or words to that effect. I said, "um, okaaaay" and moved on.

Was there something about the prior discussion that was unclear? Why would there even be a question about the TWB if you didn't have to follow the answer?

I don't see a problem with that.

The sponsor might want to keep the money in the (a) plan for various reasons, among them paternalism.

A spinoff does not have to create a new plan. You could spin off the accounts of the employees of the division that was purchased and merge those accounts into the existing plan. That's pretty much what a spinoff is for.

Can't do 401k retroactively.

No. RMDs are based upon the death of the participant, not termination of employment.