Lou S.

Can you redo the 2013 allocation or are all participants in 2013 at the 415 limit? I'm assuming the deposit was made timely for 2013 415 limit which may or may not be a good assumption on my part.

Assuming your document allows for it and most do, I don't see why you can't have an excluded class of employees equal to H-2B workers. It is definitely determinable and would appear to be for a valid business reason. As long as you pass 410(b) and 401(a)(4) testing you shouldn't have a problem.

Assuming both entities have adopted the plan then yes, not a problem. In fact you probably have to aggregate the comp. That should be spelled out in the plan document though under definition of compensation or some such similar provision.

don't think so. while 403(b) gets a free pass on ADP, I'm pretty sure ACP still applies but I don't work with 403(b)s so haven't checked the rules in a while.

ACP still applies. Works great in 1 man plan though. I think a few thread on here go into it in detail.

The Plan Document will spell out whether or not HCEs are eligible for the 3% non-elective or not. If they are not eligible they get 0%; if they are eligible they get 3%. If you are asking about additional discretionary employer contributions over and above any required non-elective contributions granted by the plan document and address in the annual safe harbor notice, those additional contributions, if any, would also be governed by the plan document and any potential IRS non-discrimination testing.

What does the plan document say?

When someone tries to defer 100% of pay how do you withhold OASDI taxes? Generally I've seen plans allow 100% but administratively limit it to 100% after any required deductions. That is certain required deductions take precedence over the deferral election.

Short of declaring bankruptcy? Hopefully they were maybe for 2014 and said no or amended out of 2014 near the end of 2013 when they realized problems. It is highly doubtful that the IRS will take a retro elimination of the safe harbor contribution. Could be time to get an ERISA attorney with a lot of EPCRS experience involved.

Good question but I think the withholding is a separate distribution subject to taxation and would need it's own 1099-R since it is not going to a ROTH-IRA.

I guess you have to determine if is insignificant or not. Some questions in making that determination might include - Has it failed all 5 years or just once 5 years ago? Is 1 HCE an insignificant number for this plan? What is the dollar amount amount involved for all failures over the 5 year period and is it sufficiently small to be considered insignificant? I don't think the IRS defines specifically "insignificant", isn't it more of a facts and circumstances test.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought to use self correction you had to fix within 2 years of the end of the plan year with the defect. Am I missing something?

Depends how competent and diligent you are. If you are willing to educate yourself enough to know when amendments are needed, understand how law changes effect your plan, stay on top of tax filings and will never have employees other than yourself you can probably do it without a TPA. But I think you'll also hear some horror stories from folks on this board about folks who came to them after things blewup on them trying to do it themselves. As the saying goes, you generally get what you pay for.

No. You are increasing the match for some or all but none will have match cut.

As long as it is not a safe harbor plan (because it would change the info in the notice) you should not have any problems with such an amendment as you won't be cutting anyone's benefit. I think the IRS views this as a discretionary amendment that needs to be adopted before the end of the year.

Yes. Assuming there is at least 1 key employee covered by both plans receiving an allocation in the SEP.

All NHCEs? No problemo.

If it is eligible for rollover, then yes 20% mandatory withholding applies.

I think you folks mean SMM (summary of material modifications) not SAR (summary annual report) but I agree. Amend the plan to vest just those folks who terminated as a result of the business transaction and be done with it. In the future, similar transactions can be done on a case by case basis with nor precedent set by the prior amendment. Each business deal can stand on its own. Maybe as part of this transaction it was agreed that participants involved would be 100% vested. But at any rate I don't see a problem unless nearly all the terms are HCEs.

Yes it is permitted as long as it is not discriminatory.

No haven't had a client do it. Yes it is allowed. I would assume it would be subject to BRF testing.

It is not the question that is the problem with the OP. It is the condescending way in which he asks it.

The OP could just take the EA Exams and self administer the plan. Shouldn't be too hard. I mean all he has to do is take a few easy tests and then push some buttons.

For what it is worth this was addressed on today's IRS webcast. The speaker from the IRS said a person whose last day is 12/31/xx is considered to have separated on that date. Again this is not formal IRS guidance as it is a merely a webcast.

Oh and it will probably taint the plan they are spinning off to as well.