Lou S.

TH not an issue. In DC plan TH goes to non-key employed on the the last day of the year. You have none as only other EE terminated. Now if you make a PS, the terminated EE would need one or you'll fail coverage.

The correction is to return the over payment.

How much is he looking to put in for the year? Prior year testing with owner at 5% + catch-up is ~$11,500. I mean if he's looking to put in that or less you could do it with no contribution to the employee.

Sounds correct. One potential pitfall I'm not sure about is that if he's a sole proprietor his income isn't technically earned until 12/31 I believe so I'm not sure what the IRS position would be on his 415 pay for the year is if the termination date is before 12/31.

It depends on the timing of his deferrals. Did he exceed the 402(g) limit in the 2021 calendar year? If he didn't exceed the 2021 402(g) limit you won't be able to recharaterize any of his July 1, 2021 - December 31, 2021 (assuming there is no plan imposed limit that might make it catch-up) because he hasn't exceeded any applicable limit. And you'll essentially "lose" the remaining $5,300 2021 catch-up. If he deferred over $20,700 in calendar year 2021 any deferrals between that amount and $26,000 can be recharaterized because you have exceed an applicable limit (that being 402(g)). Since you are saying he did not exceed the calendar year limits, you can't recapture that 2021 catch-up since the recharaterization is considered as of the plan year end when you fail the teas making it a 2022 catch-up

Cares Act (and related Amendments) seem both pretty specific to 2020 as well as being completely discretionary, I can't see why it would apply to a plan established after 2020.

My understanding of ROTH-IRA distributions is that basis is recovered first so if the partial distributions is less than the basis there would be no taxes due since participant is over 59 1/2. If partial withdrawal exceeds the basis recovery the earnings would be taxable as you don't meet the qualified ROTH distributions since it is less than 5 years.

It's not strange and has come up more than once on this board. The consensus seems to be that yes they have to participant for IRS compliance reasons. I believe the objection is usually centered around "interest" being against their faith.

Ask the client?

No

It seem like the Plan Sponsor and Trustee can cash the participants out under the terms of the document. Send Ascensus the relevant section(s) from the Plan Document and ask to escalate it to a manager.

Maybe, maybe not. Some of the "drawbacks" may or may not include - Required Contributions. PBGC Premiums Buying annuities for participants who elect them given the low interest rate environment Potentially higher top-heavy benefits Guaranteed interest credits in a time of extended market declines Satisfying §401(a)(26)

Vesting always starts from date of hire with a few exceptions as to the years you can disregard. Two somewhat common exceptions are the Plan may (but does not have to) disregard service prior to the effective date of the Plan and/or prior to the attainment of age 18 if so stated in the document. So assuming the participant is over the age of 18, his vesting in the plan will either begin on his hire date of 1/1/2020 or the Plan effective date of 1/1/2022 depending on the plan terms. Then vesting would either be under the 1000 hour rule or the elapsed time method depending on your document elections. So as Bill says - Read the Document.

Generally no. You might want to look at timing to see if it favors HCEs. As long as you follow the rules on changing a vesting schedule and don't cut back those who already accrued the 100% vesting I personally haven't seen it be an issue but perhaps someone else might have a different experience.

Send them a copy of the Plan's QDRO procedures and let them know a QDRO is required but that is not something your office prepares. If you do know some low cost QDRO providers in the area you might point them in their direction or tell them to ask the court who is handling the divorce.

The correct way would be for the participant to request a 402(g) refund and process from the Plan along with earnings with the Plan issuing the associated 1099-R. I suppose it is possible to "correct through" payroll but I don't think it is an IRS approved method. So make sure you are comfortable defending this course of action if you propose it. I'm sure that would "easier" for everyone involved, I'm just not sure it's the correct method even if it produces essentially the same result with less paperwork.

The Safe Harbor will pass ADP, you don't need to run. The Safe Harbor may pass ACP without running if you meet the requirements in the code. Making any additional employer contribution (such as profit sharing) will end the "deemed not top heavy exemption" for the year you make an allocation. Match can not be used to meet gateway but can be used off set TH minimum contribution if the document allows. As Bagwell notes these are broad questions that have long answers with sometime the answer being "it depends".

To use a numerical example, assume you have 2 participants over the age of 50, both over the 401(a)(17) limit of $305,000 for 2022. Part#1 defers $27,000 (the 402(g) limit + the catchup limit) Part #2 defers $20,500 (just the 402(g) limit) For 2022 they both have an ADP of 6.72% ($20,500 / $305,000 - since the catchup is ignored) Now suppose that after running the ADP test it is determined that they each need a refund of $3,000 to pass the testing. Part#1 has already used up all of his catchup limit and would receive a $3,000 (+/- earnings) refund. Part#2 has not used any catchup. Since the $3,000 refund is less that the $6,500 limit, all $3,000 would be recharactherized as catchup and he would receive no refund. The Plan does not rerun the ADP test after these corrections.

You're asking for consistency across government agencies? That might be asking too much right now.

I think you meant 50 not 60. And it assumes the Plan allows for catch-up, which it likely does.

My understanding is that while DOL will not impose penalties, the IRS is not bound by the DOL decision. As to whether the IRS will impose penalties in practice, I don't know the answer but I believe a similar thread on a closely related topic was discussed not too long ago. If I recall correctly the implication of that thread was that the practice of filing without the audit and correcting in 45 days may be of questionable usage going forward with respect to the IRS. This was the relevant thread

Pretty sure family aggregation (or as us old timers called it family aggravation) that you are describing was eliminated a long time ago. I think it was SBJPA of 1996 that repealed it but that being over 25 years ago I may have the citation wrong.

Remove from the affected participant account (along with associated gain/(loss)) to a plan holding account and use to offset future matching deposits. Participant is not entitled to data entry error in their favor.

Did they have a valid election to make a 2021 elective deferral. If so I think you have a late deposit and all that entails but you still need to make it. Timing will determine the year of deduction and 415 limitation year that it is applied to. If no election you're too late.

Pretty much anything you would look for on any cross tested profit sharing. The 3% safe-harbor can kind of be thought of as the base or first layer in your allocation. Though the 3% safe harbor doesn't have any allocation conditions so sometime it can trigger an additional gateway contribution you weren't expecting for terminated employees.