Calavera

Looks like your TPA gave you excuse to get him fired for not understanding the situation and/or not providing proper advices. Now regarding the actual situation: 1. The first year filing was 2017. 2. Since you mention that the coverage was triggered in the middle of 2017, the filing for the 2017 year is already late. 3. For the 2017 year plan will not have any variable premium due to an exemption. 4. For the 2017 year the flat premium is eligible for proration so your total premium should be under $1,000 5. You most likely will get penalized for the late 2017 filing. 6. If you intend to use a lookback rule, it appears that your estimated $15k premium will be for the 2018 year. 7. If you will opt out of using a lookback rule, you may eliminate the variable premium by making contributions for the 2017 plan year. However, due to the end of year valuation, you will need to file estimated PBGC filing and amend it later. I suggest carefully read the PBGC premium instruction to understand it better that could be found on pbgc.gov.

Not sure, but I think it depends on where he will file his taxes for this income.

Got it. Thanks Mike.

Not sure how amending the actuarial equivalent in the plan document will modify 415 maximum. Usually this is not a case. More information needed about benefits, ages of the owners, and the current asset value.

This is the way to go. Also note that 2 years of RMD are not eligible for rollover (he should have retired on 1/1/2018).

If this a new business that started in 2017 or 2018, he will not be considered a 5% owner. If business started before 2017, he will be considered a 5% owner. Either way, when he terminate his plan in 2021 and take full lump sum of his benefits in 2021, he will need only 1 year of RMD for 2021. Under the account method you will divide his full lump sum by the appropriate distribution period from 1.401(a)(9)-9.

When did the owner turned 70 1/2?

Interesting enough, the proposed 1.430(a)-1 did not have this -1(b)(5) section.

Thanks Mike. Looks like another absolutely stupid idea but what do I know.

If assets have not been distributed and you didn't change plan year, then in this case I agree that the filing due date does not change. I am not aware of this guidance. Can anybody provide a reference to this guidance?

Not correct. The due date is 4/30/2018 unless extended until 7/15/2018

Nobody said it is a good option. However sometimes it is the only option.

I agree with Kristina. We had this situation several times over last 3 years. It was exactly as she described.

I am not aware of any official guidance. Hope this will help: https://www.actuary.org/files/publications/PC_PPAIssues_FINAL.pdf

Yes-ish. See Q25 of https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/faqs/efast2-form-5500-processing.pdf

I agree that this is a plan document question. Generally, termination due to death, disability, or retirement means termination when eligible for death benefit, disability benefit, or retirement benefit.

... the term required beginning date means April 1 of the calendar year following the later of the calendar year in which the employee attains age 70½ or the calendar year in which the employee retires from employment ... This question keeps popping up, and I think most of us (if not all) agreed that an employee "retires" on 12/31/2017.

Yes I am not aware of anything regarding the testing on a contribution basis. The testing on a benefit basis described in many materials. So from that perspective, the approach for testing on a contribution basis makes sense.

What Effen described would be the testing of a Cash Balance plan on a benefit basis. It seems that original question is about the testing of a DB plan on a contribution basis. Therefore: {CB account / immediate QJSA factor (plan AE) * immediate QJSA (standard factor 8.5/up84) / testing compensation} > (normal rate) should give you the most valuable rate

Client definitely get deduction for 2016. And yes it is a PT. However, there are different opinions on this board regarding whether this particular PT needs to be corrected, and regarding the excise taxes. See prior discussions regarding this matter. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=38796 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=36434 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=28518 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=26763 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=19745 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=11880

Yes. The method is well known. See also Gray Book 2011-7.

I would side with Belgarath on this one, and will go back to Plan Sponsor for clarification. If they would want to make a case, they can change the date of termination in their systems to 12/31.

"The mistakes made by Congress wouldn't be so bad if the next Congress didn't keep trying to correct them." - - Cullen Hightower. "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators" .- -P. J. O'Rourke "The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets.” - - Will Rogers

I thought you cannot go over 100% of comp. Would it make answer $12,400?

I am not aware of any new guidance except the ones already mentioned, IRS examination guide and the discussion: https://www.asppa.org/News/Article/ArticleID/5037 https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/2013cpe_db-floor-offset-arrangements.pdf