Lou S.

I think if you quickly catch the error on payroll by going over in 1 plan a negative contribution on the next payroll to fix would "probably" fly. I know we've done it on occasion, not sure if it would hold up to a detailed audit or not. That said, two plans just follow the procedures for doing a 402(g) excess refund which are probably spelled out in the Plan and likely include the participant requesting it.

If he is considered benefiting under the plan than his IRA contribution would not be deductible when he files his tax return.

No that is not a match, that is a Cash or Deferred Agreement (CODA) and would be treated as a 401(k) contribution by the employee and not a matching contribution as I understand it.

See code section 401(a)(13) and regulations thereunder. BG5150 and Larry Starr are correct.

2 & 3 represent a brother sister controlled group. If 2 can pass testing excluding the employees of 3 your are fine. If 2 can't pass coverage excluding the employees of 3, you have a problem.

The Plan should have review procedures. Despite how much the Trustee may personally dislike the ex-employee unless there is a valid legal reason for denying the claim, you might want to let the Plan Trustee know that he might be in breech of fiduciary duty. Not saying this is the case here but often when this happens there is a dispute about money the ex-employee may owe the company (or owner) and sometimes criminal embezelment (sp?) charges may be pending. Usually the anti-alienation provisions of ERISA with respect to the Plan don't care about those other issues but sometimes they do. If it gets to that point though it's usually best to get a qualified ERISA attorney involved in the process.

Someone has to do the combined testing and you are right PEO Administrator is unlikely to be the one to do it.

I don't really understand your question. Company A & B are a controlled group and need to be tested together for pension purposes.

They might get reported on both Schedule A and Schedule C depending on what is being reported.

I agree with Larry, talk to a lawyer and soon.

Allowed ACP testing on the after tax voluntary. also subject to 415 limits

She's on the deed right? It would seem the Principal Residence Loan exception to the 5 year rule should apply. What am I missing?

Are they terminated or just on leave? That is are they expect back? If they are expected back I don't see how you can treat them as terminated.

I think Trump fired everybody and there is no one left to publish them.

The DC method for terminating DB Plan is somewhere in the 401(a)(9) regs. I forget the exact cite but it's somewhere in the DB Q&As if i remember right. Is this for an upcoming issue? That is he's considering terminating the Plan in 2019 and his RBD is 4/1/19?

Money purchase plan you have a funding deficiency each year it isn't cured I believe and need to carry it "forever" until cured. As to a receivable match, I would assume if you aren't correcting through EPCRS you would reverse it and file an amended Form 5500 for the year it was included but not made. Discretionary/Fixed might have some implications about qualifications issues.

How about the ERISA code? And what you can and can not exclude. It's pretty much black letter law. See §1053(b) in the attached link https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/1053

Can you log on to the PBGC site and download the Confirmation number? It should be in the account history. And if the plan if covered by the PBGC it begs the questions, why wasn't a filing done? Anyway good luck. As Bri suggests maybe try an all 0s or all 9s number just to get it filed and file an amended return when you get the number. Not the best idea but possibly a work around.

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-extends-upcoming-deadlines-provides-tax-relief-for-victims-of-hurricane-florence I could be wrong but I read this that those in the disaster area would not be subject to the exicse tax as long as the deposit was made by 9/24.

Bumping this in case anything new thing has come up in the last year. We have sole proprietor who had a $0 RMC so no contribution was made by 9/15/18. However now that his CPA has completed his Schedule C he might like to make a deductible contribution if possible for 2017. He will have a required contribution for 2018 and his income varies by year. So if possible we would like to have him make a contribution this week which he would deduct on 2017 return but would be reflected on the 2018 schedule B.

Make sure they know about the top heavy minimum for 2019.

I'm assuming this is a calendar year plan. You look at the highest percentage ownership at any point in the year in 2018 to determine HCEs. You are likely going to fail ADP and have to refund all deferrals if you have no NHCEs contributing. Now might all be a good time to see if this plan is going to be top-heavy for 2019 and suggest making it a safe-harbor for next year.

You don't want the re-finance to extend the loan past the original 5 year limit. That violates 72(p).

It is split sort of - 415 is based on the limitation year and the end of year limit is what you look at. So assuming your limitation year is the same as your plan year you would look to the 2018 415(c) limit which is $55,000. 401(a)(17) is based on the limitation in effect at the start of the year so the 2017 limit of $270,000.

There is a good rundown here http://www.napa-net.org/news/technical-competence/case-of-the-week/case-of-the-week-valuing-life-insurance-contracts-distributed-from-a-401k-plan/?mqsc=E3854111&utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=NAPA_Net_ListNapa-Net%20Daily&utm_campaign=2016.10.20%20-%20NAPA%20eNews%20-%20(Thu) The long and short is CSV may or may not accurately reflect the fair market value. See IRS Rev Proc 2005-25. But yes I believe a taxable distribution of the Insurance Policy can satisfy some or all of the RMD. But I thought Insurance Policies couldn't be held after Normal Retirement Age had been met under Incidental Death Benefit Rules but maybe I'm confusing that rule.