chc93

I'm not sure about this (note under "year" in right corner)... Also from the instructions... Note (2). If a filer is not subject to the IRS mandatory electronic filing requirement under Treasury Regulations section 301.6058- 2, a filer may elect to file Form 5500-EZ electronically using the EFAST2 filing system. Information filed on Form 5500-EZ is required to be made available to the public. However, the information for a one-participant plan or a foreign plan, whether filed electronically with EFAST2 or filed on paper, will not be published on the internet. Only says that 5500-EZ information will not be published "on the internet".

I think we've been able to get those from the DOL Public Disclosure Room. The following from the SAR (see last sentence): *************************** You also have the legally protected right to examine the annual report at the main office of the plan,___________________________ and at the U.S. Department of Labor in Washington, D.C., or to obtain a copy from the U.S. Department of Labor upon payment of copying costs. Requests to the Department should be addressed to: Public Disclosure Room, N1513, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20210. ***************************

My only experience is a larger plan (50 HCE's, 250 NHCE's) and only 1 to 2 HCE's (large after-tax), and 3 to 4 NHCE's (small-moderate after-tax) have after-tax, and the ACP test barely passes. I keep warning them, but one HCE demands this and the plan is accommodating him. I'm not sure how a small plan would pass testing, since usually it's only the HCE's who want to do after-tax. Maybe the best scenario is to fail and refund the after-tax (it's not the end of the world). After enough of of this, the HCE's may get the hint. Or very large employer match to the NHCE's.

Isn't the Sec. 72 parameters only effective when the loan is taken? Like taking 50% of the vested balance, and some short time later due to market losses the loan is now more than 50% of the vested balance... but I thought this situation is OK since Sec. 72 parameters were not exceeded when the loan was taken. So I think I vote "you're fine" too.

Can't forfeitures pay for plan administration fees? Maybe will need an amendment?

Can a “corrective” amendment put in ROTH so that the ROTH rollover in certain circumstances like this one be allowed?

Isn’t there required language for the LII… similar to the SAR, AFN, etc. The required language may be just as, or even more important, than the actual annuity amount. In which case, as Bri says, using any other participant’s LII to get the annuity factor should be good enough for this purpose. And of course, use the required language.

I can't tell from the replies, but as Peter pointed out, was Schedule H Item 3d checked as “The opinion of an independent qualified public accountant is not attached because: (2) It will be attached to the next Form 5500 pursuant to 29 CFR 2520.104-50.” [emphasis added]. Maybe that's a trigger to reject the filing?

I agree with bzorc and Bri. We had this situation a few years ago… the auditor asked the same question. When I pointed out that the prior year was not a short year of 7 months or less, they agreed and did two audits… one for each year. As bzorc said, I think this rule was for the initial year being less than 7 months.

With only 1 year of accrual, how large can the lump sum be? Vesting to 100% couldn't be excessive, I would think... but would be the "safest", especially if a potential qualification issue arises.

For whatever it's worth, my wife's 401k deferral was fixed $... when her fixed $ exceeded her gross pay, they deferred whatever was available, and her net check was zero. Fortunately didn't have any other deductions that might take preference. Lincoln Financial was the full-service TPA. I didn't hear anything about a plan failure... but really didn't expect to hear anything.

As far as I know, in 401(a)(4) testing, there is only one compensation... for the full plan year in this case. So even if the DB plan accrual is based on partial year compensation, 401(a)(4) testing uses the full plan year compensation along with the DC plan.

My understanding is that EBSA notifies the IRS that a Form 5500 was filed after the deadline. Then the IRS looks in their "system" (paper, electronic files) to see if a proper extension was filed. If found, then OK. IF not, the IRS issues their "late filing" letter. I think that usually, the DOL notice of late filing is way after the IRS sends their letter... I haven't heard about how DOL gets their information that a proper extension was filed or not.

I agree with this. But I recall that unless the DB plan termination amendment actually creates a short plan year instead of just a termination date where accruals cease and no new participants, the DB plan year is still a full plan year and the DB/DC can still be combo-tested.

I think if participants terminated in 2022 before the adoption of the amendment (regardless of effective date), they are entitled to the true-up match since they met the allocation requirements (none) before they terminated.

My understanding is that the 5558 extensions are filed with the IRS directly, and EBSA doesn't receive any extension information. So filing the extension with the IRS does not depend on what EBSA has in their system.

What if you filed extensions for "both" plans... old and new? Or will that just trigger more problems...

I seem to recall a discussion on this in the past. So for the 2020 return, do you report zero participants and zero assets at the end of the plan year? If non-zero, can you really file it as a final return? Then for 2021, do you start with zero participants and zero assets, or end of 2020 participants and assets... With first day of the plan year as an entry date, I can understand non-zero participants at the beginning of 2021. But non-zero assets at the beginning of 2021?

I've always wondered about this. In the upper-right box under the YEAR, the form clearly says the for is open to public inspection. Maybe not on the EFAST website, but I would think that it can be obtained from the DOL Public Disclosure Room.

Yes... if each plan's trust will be separate from each other, each plan's trust will need its own Trust EIN.

For our few pooled plans, standard practice is to pay as soon as administratively feasible after termination. Only if termination is in December for calendar year plan, for example, we might suggest that the distribution is held until the December valuation is completed, regardless of annual gain or loss. Never thought of distributions processed as soon as administratively feasible in plan year following termination. Interesting...

Ultimately, it is the Plan Administrator's discretion. If he's uncomfortable making the decision, he should seek legal counsel as suggested.

We had one situation where the folllow-on plan took on the loans as a transfer of assets... and the loan continued in the follow-on plan. Both plans were on recordkeeping platforms.

Maybe another consideration is that *all* of NHCE's terminated employment. I recall that the actual "partial plan termination" concept is that *any* employee that terminated in the partial plan termination year is considered to be equally affected... that is 100% vested, even if they terminated on their own and not part of the employer action. For example, an employee terminates in February, the employer shuts down a division in August. I've read that the employee terminated in February should be 100% vested along with the others affected by the shut down. So in your case, all terminated participants should be 100% vested... and that solves your issue?

Also... if the owners don't want to fully vest these terminated participants who will be getting a contribution through 11(g), they can just live with the fact that they will not get a contribution this year. Them's the breaks...