PensionPro

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

I am curious if the IRS itself has made this argument at some point.

Or does the plan document provide that benefits are unassignable?

We have a 403(b) plan that excludes commissions and bonuses for deferral purposes. Is there any nondiscrimination testing involved or is this okay? Thanks.

line 4

Agreed the so-called solo 401k market is a compliance disaster. We run into several cases where no one is paying attention to the reporting requirements when assets cross the 250k mark, owners' children are hired, common law employees are hired, controlled group rules, aggregation of 402(g) limit, plan termination reporting requirements, 415(c) violations, successor plan rules, and on and on ... save money on annual administration fees and use that to pay for costly corrections!

there would be no ASG unless at least one of them is a service org. It does not seem to me that either of the companies fits that description.

that is correct. the controlled group question relates to document provisions about employees of which entities are eligible to participate and do controlled group members have to adopt or participate etc.

are they a controlled group?

You are correct. If the businesses are treated as separate property under state law by virtue of a valid agreement and the non-involvement exception applies, the two entities can be treated as unrelated but check the details.

http://www.legalbitstream.com/scripts/isyswebext.dll?op=get&uri=/isysquery/irlf22d/1/doc

We advise clients that the minimum funding deadline is not extended if it falls on weekend or holiday but if client already deposited contribution on Sept 17 there are a couple of arguments: PLR 8139009, but it is just a PLR "It can be argued that, since failure to satisfy the minimum funding deadline results in a funding deficiency, which triggers the excise tax under IRC sec. 4971, that IRC sec. 7503 is applicable." - EOB.

The IRS has been known to use the terms "floor offset" and "offset" plans interchangeably.

Is his comp considered US source income?

If you make matching contributions to another plan then your deferral-only 403(b) plan may be subject to ERISA. See DOL Advisory Opinion 2012-02A.

each child is deemed to own 100% of the corp

It seems to me the CPA is treating them as a single trade or business using the same EIN so you would net the self employment income. If this causes nondeductible contributions see the discussion referenced earlier in post 2. What other issues are you concerned about?

Does this help?