Lou S.

And the determination date for year one and year two will be the last day of the first plan year.

If the owner's deferral is more than 60% of the total deferrals for the first year the Plan will be top-heavy and require a 3% employer contribution, unless something really screw goes on with the gain loss. The Plan is also subject to ADP testing. If the plan is using prior year testing the owner can put in 5% of pay (plus the catch-up if she's eligible) and not fail testing. If you are using current year testing you follow those rules. It's possible your owner could get the worst of all worlds by making a large 401(k) contribution that causes the Plan to be both Top-Heavy and trigger large refunds. As Bird suggest running some projected tests would be prudent.

There is noting illegal about putting in employer contributions into the trust during the plan year. Assuming they were properly from the company to the plan. But as you are finding out it's not always the best idea. If he has $40K in wages the $10K PS contribution isn't a problem from the plan stand point. If he has lass then $40K in wages a portion of the $10K PS contribution is a non-deductible contribution subject to an excise tax. I'd let the CPA deal with any ramifications beyond that.

I agree it is not a CG unless A& B are married or other attribution rules in play. As for ASG - I hate these determinations so won't comment other than to say you should consider the possibility. Lastly, does A get a W-2 from Publisher? If not your comment about "no self employment income" would lead me to believe that A does not have any wages on which to make a 401(k) deferral.

Red Sox fans are like HCEs, you're always allowed to discriminate against them as far as I'm concerned. That said I think Esop & Mike have the right answers.

Is the date of first repayment date longer than the regular loan period and is interest accrued daily? If so it's probably the first payment throwing off the calculation.

Tom his ADP is 14% of pay. I don't see how he's over max comp with a deferral rate that high.

Your options are simple - refund and forfeit the associated match with the associated 10% penalty for not getting it done by March 15 or make a QNEC to pass testing. I don't really see any other options for 2016 and you are probably in the same boat for 2017. Time to talk to him about a safe harbor plan for 2018.

I'd report them on this years form. I mean technically you should probably file an amended 8955-SSA for the year they should have been reported.

That's true. You might just create an underfunded DB plan with some potentially large excise taxes but it's not a disqualification issue in and of itself. I do agree with you that not funding the DC contributions could raise larger problems quicker with respect to potential plan qualification and potentially for both plans as it looks like not funding the DC plan will cause the DB accruals to fail 401(a)(4) in addition to the already mentioned issues in the DC plan such as failure to follow terms (Safe-harbor contributions) and failure to comply with top-heavy. I would also guess the top-heavy minimum is being satisfied in the DC plan which could also indirectly impact the DB plan qualification.

You have the potential to disqualify both plans. 401(a)(4) failure on the CB plan, failure to make SH contribution on PS plan. Sounds like these plan should be amended to freeze the CB ASAP and change the SH to a maybe notice for 2018 at the least. Doesn't solve your 2016 problem and very likely similar problem coming for 2017 but gets you out in front of it for 2018.

If you are filing a 5310 then the NOIT is required as it has all kinds of info regarding dates to submit comments to the IRS about the proposed termination and is part of the info required with a 5310 filing and it must be in a certain window prior to filing the 5310 with the IRS. If you aren't filing a 5310 the NOIT is not required. However it is prudent to give participants some notification that the Plan is terminating but honestly you can probably do that with the Termination Package you are going to need to provide to every participant with a balance. Edit - I think I have my Notices mixed up. PBGC covered plans have to provide the NOIT. For IRS filings it is a Notice to Interested Parties.

I can't imagine why a participant with no balance would want a SAR, but as far as I know they are required to receive one.

The required contribution is more than his income, therefore his income (assuming he made the $200K contribution) is now $0. He can defer $0 from his $0 income. At least that is my understanding. Perhaps someone else has a different view of this.

We use Relius docs (or FIS now I suppose) too, our adoption agreement has the following footnote on compensation, I suspect yours has a similar one After the question about "Base compensation" in the document Q23 in our PS AA (probably a different number if 401(k) AA) there are some adjustments to base compensation questions. In order to exclude 125 deferrals from the calculation you would need to affirmatively elect it. In our AA that would be Q23(h)(1). How these are answered should give you the answer to your question of what is and what is not included in the calculation. Hope this helps point you in the right direction.

Not sure I understand your question. Your plan document and required annual safe harbor notice should have the answer to your question of whether you are doing the Non-elective safe harbor that needs to be at least 3% to eligible participants whether they are contributing or not or is you are doing a safe harbor match (regular or enhanced which is your 4% minimum) to those who are contributing.

If he does nothing he can still only deduct $24,000 on the tax return but the full $24,350 will be taxed when it eventually leaves the plan of IRA. Presumably this is some thing the IRS would catch on the return but who knows for sure.

Not one of the allowable changes. Can switch to match next plan year, stuck with the NEC this year unless you did 'maybe NEC' in which case the choice is NEC and SH or no NEC and no SH but you can't switch to safe harbor match mid year.

Depends. Was it made in 2016 or 2017? If it was deposited in 2016 I don't see how you can do it as a 2017 allocation.

For them to remain you'd need to retro actively amend the plan to include them. This would likely require the approval of the employer sponsoring the plan as well as the union that governs the CBO. Lastly if you did that I can't recall if that falls under self correction or would require a VCP.

I'm 99% certain that the rules apply to the time the loan is issued so I think you would be OK even though the loans would now exceed 50K in the post merger plan. It seems similar to a participant with a 100K vested balance taking a 50K loan and then shortly after taking a distribution or the account incurring a large loss where the loan now exceeds 50% of the vested balance which is perfectly fine.

Oh and now you have 2 documents to make sure you maintain. And if you want to make contributions to both plans from both companies, you'll want to make sure that both companies adopt both plans. But as others have noted these are really questions for whomever is doing your plan administration be that Fidelity, Vanguard, or third party who is coordinating both. The advice you get here on a free message board with limited information on your situation is generally worth what you pay for it.

I'm not sure I follow the question. Why would one ever sponsor two 401(k) plans covering the same individual who is the sole employee of the company? I assume you want to have assets in two places and the document you have from one vendor does not allow for assets at another vendor? That's easily fixed with a better 401(k) trust document. In this case you would have one 401(k) plan with assets held at two custodians.

Interesting question. I don't know the answer directly but seems like it should not be a problem beyond how to put in the document. (Devil being in the details as it were) Worst case I would think you could have auto enrollment at 0% with an escalation to X% at 90 days followed by no further escalation. Though that seems overly complicated for what should be a simple provision.

If it is an annuity plan, purchase an annuity. If it is a non annuity plan, send a check less the withholding to the beneficiary if they are non-responsive. Send them a cashiers check if you have to by registered mail or some other service that has a record of delivery.