PensionPro

yes give it a shot since the employer's intention is reflected in employee communications. make sure you show it does not affect coverage, non-discrimination, etc. Worst case scenario is they say no and you have to make qnecs. The IRS made some concession on a VCP filing we did in a similar situation.

The OP is titled "controlled group issue." If the spouses have a minor child the two entities/employers will continue to be a controlled group.

Maybe others on this board can chime in. In my opinion, The employer can not exclude certain HCEs administratively without properly reflecting such provision in the plan document, SPD, and annual safe harbor notice. It is questionable if they can include a provision that limits contributions to those HCEs who are employed at the time the contributions are funded.

You should request it. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/notice-requirement-for-a-safe-harbor-401k-or-401m-plan

Discretionary nonelective contributions are different from safe harbor nonelective contributions. The section you cited does not seem to relate to safe harbor nonelective contributions. The annual safe harbor notice might be more helpful.

In theory, yes. However, the plan needs to contain provisions stating who receives the employer contributions, and that information is required to be disclosed to you in the SPD and in the annual safe harbor notice. Did you receive the annual safe harbor notice for 2017? If not, you should request a copy. If the plan reflects the employer's practice and you received the proper notices, then no. Otherwise the DOL is the agency for administering and enforcing participant righyts.

Recently, the 7th circuit held that ERISA does not preempt the Illinois slayer statute after the plan administrator initiated an interpleader action. The court determined the slayer statute applied even when the the plan participant's wife was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Moral of the story: simply paying the designated beneficiary may not always be the right course of action. https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/checkpoint-ebia-newsletter/seventh-circuit-erisa-does-not-preempt-slayer-statute-no-plan-benefit-for-spouse-who-killed-participant/

Is OP talking about the US Senate? In that case 25 is a very small number for dishonesty!

I would add that the plan sponsor should be prepared to defend its position regarding both the termination for cause and partial plan termination vesting issues before a judge or in a DOL investigation. On a side note, it is odd that the employer has 25 dishonest employees, that is a big number.

We do not furnish SAR under these circumstances as no one is "receiving benefits under such plan."

On the basis of DOL guidance it seems to be a fiduciary rather than a settlor expense that may be paid from plan assets as the filing is required to keep the plan in compliance with SEC regulations as long as the fees are reasonable and permitted by the plan etc.

You did an ADP test as of 6/30/17, you have till 6/30/18, i.e. 12 months after the close of the plan year for which the excess contributions were made.

I am not aware of an excise tax owed by the plan sponsor on excess deferrals.

what is the purpose of filing form 5330?

why not transfer the obligation for the deferred compensation from the old management company to the new management company?

Hmm, not quite sure what you are saying, particularly the references to spinoff plans and multiple plans, as the original post relates to one plan. But to clarify, when I said those employees are treated as not benefitting for 410(b) purposes, it does not mean they are excluded from the test itself.

Plan did not terminate so it is not a distributable event. Whether or not balances are included in TH test is a function of those employees' status, terminated vs. active. For testing purposes, employees of the non-adopting employer are excluded employees not benefitting.

2019. It is 3 out of 5 preceding years. An employer may use less restrictive provisions, so check plan documents. Here is an IRS example.

Check plan document provisions relating to top heavy minimum allocation. It is an elective provision in the documents we use.

Thanks for the information!

non qualified plan?

This part does not make sense to me unless the plan uses different definitions of compensation for deferral and PS purposes.

If a plan sponsor takes actions to terminate a plan but doesn’t distribute the assets as soon as administratively feasible, the plan isn’t considered terminated under IRC 401(a), so you have an ongoing qualified plan. The problem is with the distributions as was noted upthread by another poster. How do you undistribute assets when you retroactively take away the distributable event?

There are several discussions about unterminating a plan before commencing distributions. I don't think you can put the toothpaste back in the tube once you start paying out participants. Their option would be to pay out the remaining participant ASAP and start a plan 12 months thereafter. Or look at options that do not trigger successor plan rules such as ESOPs, DBs, SEPs, SIMPLEs, 403(b)s, 457(b)s.

I was addressing question 1 in your op relating to a 401k plan document.