PensionPro

Executive terminates 12/31/17 and is paid a 2018 W-2 for $800,000 distribution from a nonqualified plan for payment in Feb 2018. Plan defines comp as W-2. For 401(k) deferral purposes is this eligible comp based on the 2 1/2 months post-severance rules or is it severance pay that is not eligible comp? Thanks!

Plans can not be in an affiliated service group. Both entities adopting the same plan and providing equivalent benefits might help.

have you run the general test on an allocation basis?

This link should provide some answers but feel free to post more questions.

yes and gateway min if applicable

Plan document contains that language. Form W-4 exemption from withholding is not based on job location. Here is information from the IRS site:

401(k) plan defines compensation as compensation under section 3401(a). An employee claimed exemption from withholding on Form W-4. The box 1 of their W-2 shows zero, and the amounts listed under box 14 for informational purpose. These amounts are wages paid for services performed by the employee. Are these amounts considered plan compensation? Thanks.

prior discussion here. contributing by personal check seems to be fine but no authority mentioned for an extension of time.

The cites from Derrin Watson's book deal with attribution of beneficial interest in a trust or an estate but not in a corporation as far as I can tell. Not sure of the facts of your specific situation but you may benefit from reading PLR 201451009. In the PLR the IRS permits non-physician-owned corporations and physician-owned PCs to be treated as members of an affiliated group and file a consolidated federal income tax return based on beneficial rather than legal ownership. It does not deal directly with controlled groups or affiliated service groups but the IRS cites Rev. Rul. 84-79, 1984-1 CB 190 wherein the IRS discussed relevant authority and reasoned that beneficial ownership of property whereby the beneficial owner exercises dominion over the property satisfies the direct ownership requirement of Section 1504(a) of the Code. The ultimate analysis is better left to legal counsel. Hope this helps.

for cg purposes ... interests held by estates are deemed owned prorata by beneficiaries. Stock ownership is considered at trust level for bro-sis controlled groups so beneficial interest makes no difference.

415(h) 415(h) only applies through 1563(a)(1) - Parent-Sub controlled groups - and not through 1563(a)(2) - Brother-Sister controlled groups.

When you work on your 12/31/18 valuation your key employees are determined as of 12/31/17 so you are only determining key employees once. When you work on your 12/31/19 valuation your key employees are determined as of 12/31/18 so you are only determining key employees once. If you want to project 2019 key employees when you are working on 2018 valuation you are skipping ahead to the 2019 valuation so in that case you would redetermine key employees because you are working on the following plan year. In your example, the spouse is not a key employee as of 12/31/17 but will be as of 12/31/18. At least that is my perspective.

EOB favors determining key employees on the determination date for all purposes.

There was a recent article that stated that "the IRS outright will not question a plan termination if the plan being terminated has been around 10 or more years. If the plan hasn’t existed so long, strategic termination is still absolutely possible, so long as the process plays out correctly." I would be curious about others' experiences and opinions. https://www.plansponsor.com/administration-basics-strategic-db-plan-termination/

Document seems silent but good info on the consistency rule, thanks.

Safe harbor match per payroll. Plan excludes bonuses and vacation pay. Plan is projected to fail 414(s) test for 2018. I believe we have to amend plan to include some of the excluded pay. Question is: can we amend to include excluded comp for SOME of the employees, not all, under the 11(g) provisions. Any other ideas? Thanks!

I have worked in both environments. I prefer the departmentalized set up where one team focuses on client service and another team focuses on operations/compliance. As long as the teams are cohesive it results in a higher quality work product for the client since both sides of the office can specialize in their area. It is not helpful when your complex compliance project is constantly being interrupted by client phone calls. However, it is hard to find employees who understand both the client relations and compliance aspects of the business and are good communicators, but ideally I want a departmentalized arrangement where employees understand both/multiple sides of the business. The downside is that if you work on the compliance end you miss the client contact and if you work on the client service side you miss doing the complex calculations and research.

I would treat it as unrelated because it is being rolled over from another participant's account. I don't think rolling it over to a plan maintained by the same employer changes the fact that it is not the participant's account, but the participant as beneficiary of someone else's account.

yes, you may have a problem with effective opportunity under the universal availability rules: https://www.plansponsor.com/blines-ask-the-experts-universal-availability-and-excluding-compensation/

According to the IRS, "Request copies of filed Forms 5500-EZ using Form 4506 (includes instructions)." https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/form-5500-corner

vcp

hope you realize 403(b) deferrals are not incl in ABPT.

file form 4506

If the same board has control over the operation of both entities then it sounds to me there would be a controlled group. If the board is structured so it does not control both entities then it may not be a controlled group in which case you should engage counsel to review the governing documents.

op title indicates non-erisa plan