Lou S.

A participant would like to prepay the remaining semi-monthly payments for the remainder of the year. Assume 6 months (12 payments) being made in a lump sum right now to cover all payment from 7/15/19 - 12/31/19. Assume the participant loan program allows for these ad hoc payments and sponsor is OK with it. Is this acceptable from an IRS stand point or is it a violation of 72(p)? I realize 72(p) requires level amortization with payments no less frequently than quarterly but this is essentially paying the payments before they are due not in arrears and will not extend the term of the loan just reduce the overall interest paid. But is this a form over substance thing where it can't be done? If it was just prepaying the next quarter instead of the next 6 months would this be OK?

Is the select group highly compensated employees? (If yes, then you will likely need contribution to some or all NHCEs to pass testing) Does the Plan document allow for varying rates of contributions to different employees? (If no, they you are dead in the water but you might be able to amend for future years.)

Not my area of expertise but I don't think it can go to an Inherited IRA when beneficiary is Estate. I think you have to pay out under 5 year rule as the Estate is not a person.

They can be weekly. Yes you can make the catchup every year starting in the year you reach age 50. The catchup limit like the 401(k) limit is indexed for inflation. Until t hey change the law that is.

If your plan allows for catch-up contributions yes you can contribute up to $25,000 in 2019. If payroll stops you at $19,000 talk to someone in HR as to why you were stopped.

Just be careful of 415(h) should Husband''s ownership increase to "more than 50%" in company 2. Because then even though you don't have a controlled group, he would have one 415(b) and 415(c) limit for Company 1 & 2 combined.

Probably because the Plan allows for ROTH-401(k) contributions would be my guess but why not call T Rowe Price for clarification.

Read the Plan documents. There should be coordinating language that explains how the top-heavy minimum requirements are met.

It seems you have it correct, $42 per month is is $504, since that is under the stated limit of $1,000 you should receive an annual match of $252. It does not say if the match is calculated and deposited each payroll or at the end of the year in a single deposit. On the other hand if you were contributing $420 per month that would be $5,040 for the year. Since that exceeds the maximum $1,000 that is matched the annual match would be capped at $500. In addition it appears that an annual contribution is made that varies based on pay and years of service with the company. This is only a brief summary and the legal plan document and summary plan description might contain additional information that could effect eligibility and amounts.

Why wouldn't you approve. Aren't they threatening foreclosure if not paid? Wouldn't this satisfy avoiding eviction or foreclosure of principal residence?

I think the remedy is to as you say send out the notice as soon as it is discovered with the administrative reason for delay. As a disgruntled former employee you might want to include a withdrawal package that you'll offer to process as soon as the blackout period ends.

Is there a specific reason for him to continue the Plan? I know many years ago we had a client who maintained his 1 man Sole-Prop PSP long after he "retired" largely because he invested in 2nd deeds of trust and it was much cheaper to pay admin fees and document amendments than if was to pay an IRS trustee to hold non-traditional assets. We prepared and he continued to file 5500 under his sole-prop EIN. At some point in the "retirement" phase where he was not making contributions the Plan underwent an IRS audit that was no change. This was in the 90s if I recall correctly so at least at that point the IRS was OK with it. If there is no need to maintain the plan I don't see why he wouldn't formally terminate and roll to IRA to get out of all the compliance work associated with a qualified retirement plan with amendments and 5500 filing requirements.

Loans are not a protected benefit. I don't think there is a problem eliminating future loans for terminated participants.

Wouldn't the over funded pension raise the value of the business which was likely part of the marital settlement? Or do I have it wrong.

I think if it's unclear in the document the Plan Adimistrator would resolve in most favorable way to participant which would be 1st day of the quarter following anniversary in the 12 month period where they worked 1,000. If the document cleary switches to Plan year after the first computation period then they would enter first day of the next plan year. As for the 1.88 MT that was referenced in my AA, your AA may reference a different MT section.

Yes but hard to see a scenario where it would fail if you did testing on a contribution basis. I suspose if you had low paid owners or low paid owners kids in the plan you could run into some situations where it would fail but I'd think in most cases you'd pass pretty easy.

Have you read 1.88 of the Master Text? I believe the answer is there in conjunction with how the AA was completed in the "Eligibility Requirements" Section. Also have you tried posing the question to Corbel/FIS directly, I found they are usually very good about giving responses concerning their document.

I doubt that is "a reasonable job classification" and I think excluding NHCEs by name can be problematic but I'm not 100% certain on that. I think you may need to find a workaround like "widget makers are excluded" where he just happens to be the only widget maker employed by the company.

Doing it wrong because it is expedient and "probably" gets the same result isn't really an excuse. I've got no problem with your recharacterization of the in-service, I'm just trying to figure out why the blow back on getting the reporting correct.

Code 7 is eligible for rollover Code 8 is not eligible for rollover

Well his in-service distribution might have been eligible for rollover and he might very well have rolled it over within 60 days but the ACP refund is not eligible for rollover. If he has funds in his account tyo cover the ACP refund I don't see why you don't just issue the refund. If the In-service drained his account to the point where it no longer covers the refund than yeah you need to send him a letter indicating a portion of his in-service in not eligible for rollover and recharacterize his in-service as part in-service and part ACP refund.

They entered the plan on July and became a participant. You state that participants can modify election "on any payroll period" so they can start on the next payroll after they turn in their election subject to admin procedures on when changes need to be made to be implemented. That is payroll might need some time to enter it into the system.

No you misunderstand I was thinking of him taking a hardship to reduce his plan balance under $2,000 to keep medicaid and using that to pay medical bills which he probably has at least a few not fully covered by medicaid. No?

I assume you mean without firing him? I'm not sure there are good options at this point for the Plan even though it stinks for the participant. "Here's a $1,000 for safe harbor, oh by the way it's going to cost you $12K in medicaid benefits annually". Which kind of seems screwed up on may levels. Did they remove the restriction on hardship distributions from safe harbor sources? If so can he take hardships to cover medical costs and drain his account? Can the plan be amended to have an excluded class of employee of which he is in the excluded class? I'm not sure this works in a safe harbor 401(k) but I think it is OK if you pass coverage. Probably doesn't help though until 2020 as he's already eligible in 2019 and the amendment cutting his benefits would be prohibited.

I think you have to go through a lot of hoop show it is not a prohibited transaction if you make "in-kind" contributions. If they really want to go that route have them consult with an ERISA attorney who is familiar with the rules as they can be quite complicated.