Lou S.

Possible, sure. Advisable, I'll leave that up to you.

I don't think it's a problem from legal standpoint. Our Corbel Cycle 3 doc has a box that says something like "participant must meet all conditions if checked" so it's be easy to do right in the AA on our doc. But it also has line for "Other" as long as it's definitely determinable and not subject to discretion and meets the general IRS rules you should be fine. Ease of administering it or whether it's a good idea is a separate issue but from an allowable standpoint I don't see an issue. I mean it's got a defined age and participation condition that is more than 5. It might cause some odd results for those over age 59.5 or even an age 65 NRA who don't have the 10 years of participation and wouldn't be eligible for in-service.

I was under the impression if you had a short plan year you had a short plan limitation year as well but maybe I'm mixing something up?

Box 1 is taxable wages. Box 5 is wages subject to Medicare taxes. It's possible than neither is the employees gross wages. ESOP guy lists some good examples.

I have no idea what that can claim and I'm not an attorney but you might remind them who is listed as the ERISA Plan Administrator in the Plan Document that they signed as ultimately that looks like the responsible fiduciary for much of what they are requesting, some of which looks like source data that they would have originally provided to you. You're responsible for returning any source data the client provided and copies of prior reports they paid for and you sent but you able to charge a reasonable copying charge for your time. You're not responsible for send them work product that hasn't yet been paid. As to time frame, I would again say that turn around is unreasonable. I mean did they just learn Wednesday morning they had a Friday filing deadline for something? And was it something they engaged you to do? I don't see how it's your problem or why you should make it such.

Employees are paid on a W-2; Independent Contractors are paid on a 1099.

Well presumably most of this is old data/reports/etc. that they should have in their files. As for anything current they are requesting what does your service agreement say? And making a request on Wednesday and expecting the request to be filled on Thursday I would not expect to be considered reasonable. I mean I guess you could call the client and say the cost for this rush billing project is $x and we require an immediate retainer of $y before starting the project. And no we will not be responsible for penalties for your failure to not maintain plan records.

Correct; no GC based on those facts.

Adopt a new plan 002 retro to 1/1 under SECURE; fund that for 2021; and merge into the old one for 2022; file $0 5500 for plan 001 for 2021? Kind of a PITA but I think it would solve your proration issues.

A search for a new record keeper may be in order.

when does the plan year end? Assuming you have a 1 month plan year then 415(c) and 401(a)(17) are both prorated by 1/12th so 415(c) limit would be $4,833.33 and 401(a)(17) $24,166.67.

I'm not sure that situation is contemplated by the Regs, if it is I have not seen it. I don't know if this is the correct answer but if it came up in one of our Plans, we would issue the requested 402(g) refund but would NOT rerun the ADP test as the excess was due to contributions to an unrelated Plan that the Sponsor had no control over. Unless there is a reg I'm missing that address this situation.

They are unrelated employers per your post (no CG or ASG) so use the Schedule C from the Single Member LLC less 1/2 the self employment taxes reported by the CPA as your starting point. The loss in the unrelated partnership reduces his overall income for calculating the SE tax is all so he has a smaller deduction to income for the "employer portion."

It's possible to have taken COVID Withdrawals from multiple COVID eligible sources, however there was an aggregate limit of $100,000 per individual for COVID withdrawals. The DB would have had to adopt CARES provisions, the participant would have had to be eligible and elected a CARES withdrawal in 2020. The SEP is just a type of IRA so withdrawals taken in 2020 that met the definition of CARES withdrawal could have been COVID related up to $100,000 limit. If the DB plan allowed participant loans up to another $100,000 potentially could have been taken tough repayment was to have started over a year ago at this point.

Many 401(k) Plans are not subject to the QJSA rules but that's generally an election in the document. What does the document say?

No you're saying it's impossible; I'm saying its impractical. Maybe that gets to the same place in the end but there is a big difference.

Well this is simply not true. It may be economically unfeasable to do the other options in a small plan but other options are available. For example you could get duplicate statements of every monthly/quarterly statement from the brokerage house and reconcile on that basis, the client just may not want to pay for your time to do it and frankly I think you and I would both agree it's kind of nutty in the as you point out 4 participant market.

It depends, is the Plan subject to the QJSA annuity rules? If so you need spousal consent to pay in a form other than the normal annuity form of benefit to pay in cash. But one way or another the payments need to start to satisfy the RMD rules.

They would receive the SHNEC unless excluded (which you say they are not). For 401(a)(17) limit you'll need to aggregate comp from all 3. For example if the owner makes $150,000 from each of the 3 companies, his SHNEC (assuming 3%) would be capped at 3% of $290K for 2021 and 3% of $305K for 2022, not 3% of $150K x 3.

Again not an employment expert but to me it sounds like the Old company is the employer until 4/30 and the old plan still covers the employees like it always has. If it was the new company was paying them, then they would be employees of new company and I'm not sure how they continue making contributions to the old plan without the new company becoming an adopting employer or taking over sponsorship of the Plan. And if that did happen you could have successor plan issues with the new company if they tried to terminate.

Is old company paying them through 4/30? If yes I don't see a problem with this but then I'm not an employment attorney.

From 1/1 - 4/30 are the employee still employed by the "old acquired" company and being hired by the "new acquiring" company on 5/1? Is the acquiring company taking over sponsorship of the plan or is it remaining with the old company?

Did the valuations support the contributions under 404 & 430? If they did and your comfortable with the results, you're done but probably have an over-funded DB Plan right now. If you have to go back and redo the valuations and the contributions were above the deductible limit you have nondeductible contributions subject to excise taxes in one or more prior years and probably some amended tax returns to file and you probably still have an over-funded DB Plan right now.

No as inherited IRAs have different distribution and RMD rules.

402(g) excess don't have any withholding I believe as the excess is taxable in the prior year.