Lou S.

The IRS position is you have a 401(k) plan and required Form 5500 filing until you terminate the Plan. That is you have eligible participants who have not elected to defer. So you have a plan just with $0 assets. I would say the Plan needs to be formally terminated and 5500 would be required for 2022 and 2023 though those 5500s should be quite easy. Hopefully it's a small plan with fewer than 100 participants so you don't need an audit. Anyway that's the correct way to do in my opinion. If they don't want to do it that way and just want to walk away to save expense, you should formally resign and let them know what their requirements are but that you will not be responsible. A CYA letter so to speak.

Has a DB plan and wants to contribute more than 6% to the DC. With 401(k) they can contribute 401(k) limit plus 6% employer contribution.

Just one of the many things in Secure 2.0 where we need guidance but speculating it seems likely that the guidance maybe - amend out catch-ups (at least for folks over the $145K indexed) or amend in ROTH.

I'm not sure I fully understand but from what you describe it does not look like there is any First Service Organization in this group nor does what you describe seem to fall into the Management Group catch all either. I find the linked IRS document helpful. But if there are any questions whether or no an ASG does or does not exists I'll refer them to an ERISA attorney to give them an opinion. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/epchd704.pdf

Secure 1.0 updated the tables but there was no additional change to the tables in Secure 2.0 that I'm aware of and I haven't seen seen any mention of a table change in any write-up on Secure 2.0 or webcast I've sat in on.

Yes. The participant has an RMD for 2023 so the plan need to pay out the RMD to the beneficiary before the rollover since it's not eligible for rollover.

If you are trying to roll from ROTH-IRA to ROBS plan the IRS does not allow ROTH-IRA -> Qualified Plan. If you are trying to roll from ROTH-401(k) -> ROTH-401(k) the IRS does allow that as a direct trustee to trustee transfer but the accepting plan has to also allow it so that may be the limitation your are hitting. ROBS are not my thing. As to the rest of your situation I have no comment as it's not my area.

What vesting schedule do they want in the surviving plan? Why not use that one and follow the change of vesting schedule rules for anyone who the surviving vesting schedule isn't better in all years?

What's the reporting on it? Does the plan issue a 1099-R for ROTH contribution or is it added to the employee W-2? If added to the W-2 do they code it to be exempt from payroll taxes? If on the W-2 how is it reported to SE who don't get a W-2? Is it income for the employee taxable year when deposited or for the year declared? If it shows up on the w-2 how do you make sure it doesn't become circular if the definition of comp is W-2 wages? Maybe these questions have been answered and I missed that recap.

I don't think you can test plans with different PYE together for 401(a)(4) and each needs to pass on its own.

I believe the reduction form 50% excises tax to 25% is effective in 2023.

It depends what the plan document says. Is everyone in their own rate group? Will the testing pass if that participant gets an extra $300?

I could be wrong but I'm not sure it's an over payment. Rather it sounds like a 415 excess since there was no pay 415 pay to give it to the participant in question. My though was could it be "allocated" in a prior year when there was 415 comp and the custodian just "forgot" to move it from the unallocated account to the participant account? At any rate seems like a more than $300 of billable hours whatever solution is done to fix it.

That's a good point. My comments were all related to funding rates for the valuation. So if you're asking about something else, then my comments might not have relevance.

We're defaulting to 95% corridor of 4.75/5.18/5.92 rates unless there is some reason not to.

Those are the ones.

For my own curiosity if the DB plan is electing the DC method when the RBD is 4/1/2023 do they have to process the 2022 and 2023 RMD using that method prior to rollover like a DC plan would? With the "standard" DB method you would not.

Invoice him $300 for researching what to do with an unallocated forfeiture account.

Try here (we just switched to the ARP/IIJA Table for the applicable year of change) https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/pension-plan-funding-segment-rates

On #1 unless there are facts not disclosed I agree, no controlled group. On #2, interesting. As long as he isn't over the 30,000 limit and has at least $7,500 in deferrals to each plan I see no problem with what you are describing. It's an interesting loophole but it doesn't look problematic under the code.

So it's fraud. Don't be a willing participant. Outline his EPCRS options, recommend an ERISA Attorney, resign if they don't want to do it. Then the only question is do you want to report him to the DOL or not.

I believe it goes back to the original owner. The question for me would be whether the successor beneficiary RMD is under Pre-Secure rules (and can continue to stretch) because the the original IRA owner died Per-Secure or if the successor beneficiary must satisfy the post Secure rules (10 years with RMDs in the first 9) since the original beneficiary died post=Secure and that is when the successor beneficiary because entitled to the account. I honestly don't know the answer but I'll almost certain the answer is NOT no RMDs in year 1-9.

Is it addressed in the 403(b) document? I know our 401(a) document has a revocation on divorce clause, does your 403(b) document have something similar?

Assuming the election was validly executed I don't see where you have a problem...unless it triggers coverage issues which is a large part of the problem with irrevocable elections that Bird eludes to in post above especially in the micro plan market if the election is made by someone who isn't always an HCE.

Assuming that owners name is the beneficial owner of dynasty trust/owners name then I believe that owners name is considered to own 37.04% of the company. For HCE determination, attribution under §318 a child (both minor and adult) are deemed to own the stock of their parent. Thus by attribution the daughter is deemed to also own 37.04%. The results would be different for §1563 and Controlled Group determinations.