Lou S.

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.

Congrats Mike, well deserved.

The 101(j) notice is required. Try IRS Notice 2012-46 which is the IRS official guidance on the 101(j) notice if I recall correctly.

For what it if worth we have had PBGC approve waivers for non majority owners (with spousal consent) on plan termination that allowed a standard termination to proceed but it's been quite some time. From what I recall the PBGC is pretty receptive to working with you particularly if the alternative is distress termination. As for not PBGC plan the benefits are typical reduced to the level of funding based on the terms of the plan in a nondiscriminatory manner. The two most common methods I've seen in plan documents is pro-rata on PVAB (though this can be problematic if integration is involved) or pro-rata on PBGC priority categories though this can sometimes be problematic from a nondiscrimination standpoint in small plans as the owners typically seem to have the most benefits in the higher PBGC priority categories.

Aren't they already late with the TH contribution at this point? Doesn't it need to be in by 12 months after the year end? And yes I would think at this point you need the 3% for 2015 & 2016, the only question that remains is do you do a VCP filing.

After re-reading (several times) Tres Reg. §1.4019(a)(9)-4 Q&As 3, 5 and 6 I think they can use the age of the eldest beneficiary to determine the RMD for 2017. I wouldn't stake my life on I but I'm reasonably confident enough to say that it is allowed and can be used for the calculation. I'm also confident that they can not use multiple ages in sub-trusts to further reduce the RMD.

Thanks both of you. Yes I think the 9/30 comes into play for various scenarios but not specifically for this one as the whole thing will be wrapped up before 9/30 of the year following death, at least from the Plan standpoint, after that I don't really care what they do with the IRAs. The trust meets the applicable rules for pass through trust under 401(a)(9) so I thought we'd get the benefit of oldest beneficiary if better in calculating the RMD for 2017 but based on ESOPs post maybe not. Looks like I'll have to re-read the regs again. Essentially the RMD is being paid to the trust then distributed from the trust to the 5 beneficiaries and the balance of the account will be rolled to a conduit trust IRA that will then be divided by the 5 beneficiaries. I didn't set up this structure, just trying to follow the executors instructions while keeping the Plan in compliance with the RMD rules which always seem needlessly complex whenever I have to delve into them.

Participant in profit sharing plan over age 70.5 in pay status died in 2016. 2016 RMD was made to participants Trust. In 2017 the balance of the account will be rolled to an IRA that will be divided by 5 beneficiaries. The 2017 RMD must be made prior to the rollover to the conduit IRA and will be made to the trust prior to the rollover. Assume for this that attorney handling trust and rollover IRA has done it properly. I get confused on what the RMD divisor for 2017 RMD is in this situation. Is it "the participants single life divisor in 2016 minus 1", or "the single life expectancy of the oldest of the 5 beneficiaries in 2017" if that results in a smaller RMD? Or is there a different rule I'm missing? Any guidance appreciated.

If you do a true up it would apply to all similarly situated employees, not just HCEs or you would have a discrimination issue. But in practice it probably going to go mostly to HCE who front load their deferrals like the ones you describe. That's OK as long as you true up all employee, provided the document allows, even if it only goes to HCEs. If that makes sense.