Lou S.

I think it might depend on the nature of the merge and whether or not the sponsor of Plan A was acquired in a stock or asset transaction or if the Sponsor of Plan A and Sponsor of Plan B are part of a controlled group or not.

That's a good question that I don't know the answer to but since they are separate programs I think you have two separate batches to file but would probably want to do them concurrently and under the cover letters probably want to note which years you are filing under which programs.

I don't see any problem with the hours of service rule for the participants starting 1/1/2026 for the Plan A participants merged into Plan B. You state that Plan participants are immediately 100% vested and Plan B are subject to graduated schedule. I'd make sure you are in compliance with any change of vesting schedule rules for Plan A participants merged in to Plan B to avoid any potential cutbacks.

To my knowledge the IRS has never had a restriction on taking a hardship after loan. The IRS used to have a requirement that you had to take all available loans before a hardship but that went away in 2018(?) maybe. It was one of the hardship rewrites. But as CuseFan notes, the plan can have more restrictive provisions so always good to check.

I'm with Peter, read the fabulous document. Which I'm guessing "probably" allocates them up to the 415 limit. If that doesn't eat them all up, you probably have a lot of forfeitures. I haven't heard being able to allocate forfeitures to past employees, but just because I haven't heard it, doesn't mean it can't be done. I have seen excess assets in a DB plan allocated to former employees who still have accrued benefits but I have not seen the same thing done in DC plan that had unallocated forfeitures.

I've only done it on takeover plans when both the administration firm and actuary and actuarial firm are changing. I believe that is another exception that gets automatic approval I think it's in the same rev proc as the BOY change auto approval but it's been a while since I looked it up. Otherwise I believe you need to submit to the IRS for a change in funding method to switch the val date to EOY which is often cost and time prohibitive. I believe automatic approvals are in Rec Proc. 2017-56 and other changes that require submission are in Rev Porc 2017-57.

I believe you are generally "safe" if you have the current benefit structure in place for 5 years but that doesn't mean you can't change it sooner. A repeated pattern of amendments is a facts and circumstances determination. Is two a pattern? In addition to Effen's questions, I think you'd want to look at more than just the history of the 2023 restatement and possible 2025 amendment. There may be valid business reasons for increasing benefits now.

Participant Direction is not required. You can still be a pooled Trustee Directed plan as far as I know.

I've done it before. I don't see any issue.

Unless they have a time machine, too late for 2024. For 2025 if they haven't met the accrual condition for 2025, you can assuming you do any amendments and notices timely but given that we're already in September unless they haven't been paying themselves any salary you might have a tough time justifying no accrual.

Does the Plan Document currently not allow for match or has the company simply not made matching contributions in the past? Because I think the two may lead to different results. If the plan currently allows for a discretionary match but they haven't made one, the plan probably already has a testing method (current or prior) and I don't think you can used the assumed 3% prior year rule. If the plan doesn't currently allow for matching contributions and you are amending that in with the after tax, then I agree if you elect prior year testing, the first year NHCE ACP is assumed to be 3%.

You might check out this old thread that seems close to your fact pattern and look at the reg that is quoted in the last post, but it's an older posts and some cites may have changed. Treas. Reg. Section 1.404-3(a)

From a plan perspective it doesn't change the characteristic of the funds in the Plan for participants. As for what happens to the nondeductible contribution that was not deductible because minimum required contribution was larger than self-employment income , I believe the excise tax is waived and you can carry forward the deduction to future years but I'm not a CPA and not 100% sure on how that works or what would need to be filed with the IRS and maintained by the client.

I guess it depends on your engagement and your scope of services but you could clarify that before hand with your client as to who is responsible for what with respect to plan documents, IRS testing, employee notices, blackout periods and government filings along with any other issues that may crop up.

I don't see it as an IRS failure. But the PBGC could be very sticky or they could choose to be very helpful. That is if everyone got the proper payout the PBGC might "just" want the missed premium filings with penalties and interest, and a late Form 500 and 501 along with all the paperwork that goes with that. Or they could say the termination is void and have you go back and do a lot which might also crate some IRS issues in addition to the PBGC ones. It sounds like a good time to get ERISA counsel, especially one who works with PBGC issues, involved and review potential options.

Simple answer - Read the Plan Document.

I think it depends how you word the amendment whether it applies to future participants only or future and current participants, but I think you could do it with proper timing and employee notices.

Suggest they can make the best estimate in January for the prior year and make the deposit by 30 days after the plan year ends or convert to a corp with W-2 wages and you can tell them the number for sure if they give you all the data timely. If they overshot what they could have done, apply what you can to the prior year, what you can't to the current year and make sure you adjust for that when you do the estimate again the next January. Let them know at some point they may run into a problem with that and may have to do a 415 refund due to estimating compensation if you can't apply all the overage in following year.

Ask them for the fair market value of the investment?

defer to legal counsel

Talk to FTW?

If you maintain separate plans going forward I think you can get away with it as long as you don't have a pattern of regularly adding new plans to re start vesting schedules as that would be a pattern showing abuse. Once you merge one plan into the other though in a single employer, you can't exclude those years anymore.

You can't get around the rules prohibiting class year vesting simply by merging the new plan into the old one and having separate vesting schedules apply if that's what you are asking.

It doesn't sound like the plan needs to do anything. There are no other participants who may have gotten the wrong allocation percentage and you state the allocations are under the 415 limit so there is no 415 limit violation to correct. Probably want documentation in your files that the income supports the 415 limits. Assuming everything was reported correctly on the 5500-EZ what is there to correct? If they contributed more than 25% deductible limit in any years that's an issue for the accountant to address with the tax returns they are fixing and any 5330s that might be due for non-deductible contributions. If they wind up with a non-deductible carry forward, they should probably let you know so you can advise them properly going forward.

I don't see any problem especially if it was the employer who was in error on starting the payments.