Lou S.

For what purpose? The partnership agreement should spell out how contributions are allocated. For certain IRS tests, the highest percentage owned at anytime during the plan year is used. You should probably talk to the CPA as to how they are allocating expenses for the pension contributions. This is just a guess but I would suspect that all partners (including the departed) are going to be responsible for their own contributions and that the contributions for non-partner employees are going be split equally between the remaining 8 partners, but there may be some agreement that the 2 departing partners will be paying some of the ee cost, though that's doubtful as collecting those contributions can sometime prove problematic in practice.

If you are a maybe plan, you aren't a safe harbor plan. Amendment should be no problem. I think you might lose the ability to change your mind and be a "yes" for 2015 depending on the amendment, but if you are sure you aren't going to use safe harbor shouldn't be an issue.

Maybe I'm wrong but I thought the procedure was if you filed timely but the DOL/IRS found it to be incomplete they they sent you a letter with 30 days to correct it. Has that changed?

As long as you have the "good" acknowledgement file, I agree with your position to simply file an amended return now. We never did this but I've heard in the "good old days" before e-filing this was a somewhat common strategy for filing plans that couldn't get their audit done by the extended filing deadline. I understand it doesn't work quite as well these days but some still do it to buy them an extra few weeks to get the audit done. Of so I've heard.

Why would use DFVCP? Why not just file an amended return? Has the DOL sent a letter about the first filing?

If you are putting it into the Plan as a profit sharing contribution it would not pass IRS testing if only owners received an allocation. It is possible to draft the plan to give different rates of contributions to different classifications of employees but it is likely that a "large" allocation to owners would very likely require at least a 5% of pay contribution to rank and file. The interplay of the various Internal Revenue Code sections discrimination test are generally too complex to give you a simple yes or no answer.

They would no longer be an active participant in the plan. They would continue to accrue vesting service. It is very similar to when a plan excluded collectively bargined employees and a previously eligible employee goes from being non-union to union. Except in this case for coverage you would probably have them as a non benefiting employee for certain tests where collectively bargined employees can generally be ignored.

Does the IRS rollover chart help or is this a specific exception I'm not taking into account? http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/rollover_chart.pdf Mind you this is just what the IRS allows, Plan's don't have to accept rollovers or can limit the types of Plans they will accept rollovers from.

Yes, you would have to aggregate.

That is correct.

If he is in the 401(k) plan you have a 416 top heavy minimum in the 401(k) due to required aggregation with the SEP.

Be careful of a disguised CODA. That's usually an issue in partnerships where partners kind of pick and chose what their contribution will be but it could possibly be extended in this case, though I doubt that would be an issue. From a nondiscrimination standpoint, there is absolutely no problem with what you propose. The final question would be, what does the document say? Does it allow for differential rate groups by classification that would allow this employee to receive the allocation without giving any to other employee? If you are talking about 2016, then there is more than enough time to amend the plan to make it happen. If you are trying to do it for 2015 with amendment, be careful if their are currently no conditions for receiving a year end contribution from the employer.

You can't reduce the participant's accrued benefit. So no you can't bill the participant for the CB distribution. You can bill the Plan or the Sponsor.

Who would put as the IRA owner's name? I don't think that's an option in this case. I assume they have made every reasonable effort to find beneficiaries? Does the document allow for forfeiture, with restitution if the the beneficiaries come forward at a later date? Is escheating the to the state and option?

If it is lack of documentation, the correction is simply to get the documentation and retain it. I guess you could call that self correction. If it is that the proceeds were not used for primary residence, the correction is available through VCP. Either through re-amortization over no more than 5 years from the original loan or through loan default for violation of 72(p) if outside the 5 year window from the original loan.

The rule is on remitting to the plan, not on allocating to participants.

The QNEC would be for the missed deferral period. Presumably from his re-hire though the date he was allowed to participate. So you would have a QNEC due for his missed period in both 2014 and 2105.

I think you may be mixing the vesting and eligibility rules.

I could be wrong on this but I think what you have is a document failure easily correctable under VCP.

The 402(g) limit is on a calendar year. The 402(g) limit can be exceeded in a non-calendar fiscal year assuming the participant does not exceed the 402(g) limit (including any catch-up if applicable) in either calendar year and does not exceed the 415 limit (or any other plan imposed limit on deferrals) in the limitation year which is often but not always the plan year. That said, this can be problematic for plans subject to ADP testing when HCEs do this. edit - that's a long winded way of saying - very likely no problem in your example.

Yes. If yours doesn't show it, check to make sure you are on the latest service pack. The one I just printed has it broken out.

Request an in-service distribution of the loan balance. Problem solved.

Isn't failure to give the notice an operational failure?

The common method is to force the participant to either pay off the loan or take a taxable distribution. In some situations the asset acquiring company will allow participants to rollover loan balances along with the other funds, but in my experience that this the exception rather than the rule. Your mileage may vary.

I'm not sure. The question used to be on the form but was removed at some point and added back this year. edit And by "used to be" I mean it may predate the SF and date back to the old C/R cycle forms.