BG5150

I used to have a chart that listed a bunch or retirement plans and which could be had in the same year and which couldn't Anyone have anything like that? I've been looking through everything I have and cannot seen to locate it.

And remember, the expenses have to be reasonable. Not gonna pay someone $5,000 to put together census data for a 50 person plan. (and if they really want to pay that much, send them my contact info. I'm free on weekends to help out.)

Do not adjust the W2.

It's on the IRS website. All three, I think... I'll even help https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/retirement-topics-required-minimum-distributions-rmds

Attribution doesn't count in those cases. But in the case of husband and wife, it says that the owner/partners AND their spouses, so, in your case, the wife is automatically included--it doesn't matter how much she directly owns, if anything.

And, for 2016, you'd use the 2016 ADP (or one of the alternatives CB suggested) and multiply by the comp thru 2/15/16. If THAT'S no known, you could probably use 2016 comp times 87.5% (or 10.5/12 months).

Basically, it's saying if you have to make a corrective contribution and it's $300, and there's a loss of $20, you can either deposit $300 or $280. However, if there is a corrective distribution of $300 with a $20 loss, you distribute $280. Just my take.

That describes a 415 excess.

And what is the fix under EPCRS? The only section I see that addresses it is in Appendix B in .07 about correction by amendment. The ER does not want to correct it by amendment. I don't see anything about not including this person and removing their money.. (I searched EPCRS for 'inclusion'. This was the only section other than instances of things "included" in VCP filings. Do we look to Section 6 on Excess allocations? What 1099-R code do you use? Can't use 1--if the person is under 59.5 otherwise that would trigger a penalty tax, I think.

I should know better than to argue w/ attorneys (and/or former attorneys), but: 415(c)(3): (I left out disability and two more items as they aren't relevant to my thinking ro the discussion) I don't believe this person is a participant, therefore they cannot have "participant's compensation." Is there a different definition of "participant" that I'm missing? Is a participant anyone who, rightly or not, has an account under the plan?

Getting into semantics, but 415 excess are EPCRS issues nowadays...

No she wasn't. Just b/c someone puts funds into a plan doesn't "technically" make you a participant.

Old Actuarial Outpost forums can be found here. Currently up and running. You have to put in the url directly: http://204.232.242.165/actuarial_discussion_forum/index.php

I'd say 415 excess. Zero plan compensation from which to defer.

Generally, I take what the accountant calculates on the K-1 as net Self Employment Earnings and start there. As mentioned above, I believe some guaranteed payments are included in that figure, some are not.

The AO has been semi-replaced with goactuary.org. The Outpost is up and running again, but with a much pared-down forum section. Though there is a back-door somewhere so that people can get into the legacy forum and still post. Not sure if any new exam questions would be answered, but the old stuff is probably there.

Could the employer open an account solely for the use of these funds and institute a policy that within a certain time of the account being funded, a wire will be issued to the reserve fund?

Same goes for a "1% owner."

never mind, just re-read an earlier post that said the EE notified the ER in mid-December. However, they mus start the deferrals before the end of this month and adhere to the notification requirements in EPCRS.

In order for the sponsor to be eligible for the safe harbor relief: [quote](i) Correct deferrals begin no later than the earlier of the first payment of compensation made on or after the last day of the three-month period that begins when the failure first occurred for the affected eligible employee or, if the Plan Sponsor was notified of the failure by the affected eligible employee, the first payment of compensation made on or after the end of the month after the month of notification;[/quote] When did the participant notify the employer? They may still have time to correct this. But nothing will be in/for 2020. It'll all be QNEC & earnings plus deferrals starting in 2021.

Does the document allow for 90% deferrals? If money does not come out of the paychecks in 2020, it will not be reflected on the 2020 W2. Part of the correction is to make sure this mistake does not happen again. So, the sponsor must investigate why the r/k had 60% in their system. Is it a system limitation? Did it used to be 60% and the plan was amended? If so, was the amendment disclosed to the r/k? If so, why didn't they implement it. Was it just a mistake?

Look to the plan doc first. does it allow deferrals up to 90%. The r/k website was coded that way for a reason. (Maybe it was a mistake, maybe when it was programmed the max was indeed 60% and an amendment was done and somebody dropped the ball, or, again, it was indeed 60% all along) Does the participant have an SPD that says at least 90% max? If so, then, yeah, the company is on the hook for the EPCRS correction. If not, what was the original deferral amount? Was it already at 60%? Or lower?

For whatever reason, the payor EIN on the schedule R has been the company's tax id for several years. Up until 2015, they were using the EIN of the custodian. Should we amend those filings for that little thing?

Controlled group with 4 companies. Only 3 of them adopted the plan, but all four companies are participating. Can we do a retroactive amendment having the missing company adopt the plan back to 2013?

General Motors?