Lou S.

While I agree with your practicality. I believe the IRS from the podium at conferences agrees with Mike's comment that you can't simply "reverse the key-ee deferals."

As Mike correctly states the answers to your questions should all be in the Plan Document. While the determination date for 2016 is 12/31/2015, eligible non-key employees in 2016 would get the TH minimum based on full year 2016 pay, even if your document excludes pre-participation compensation. If your plan document is drafted such that only non-key employee/participants who are employed on the last day of the year are eligible for the TH minimum then you can satisfy the TH-minimum with a 1% contribution (assuming that is the highest deferral rate between you and your partner) just to them. On the other hand if it says all employees even Key get the TH minimum once you and partner get the 1% contribution your are now at 2% with deferral and have to increase to 2% which starts the whole cycle over. But I totally agree with Mike, have that 60.7% figure rechecked.

Create, deposit, distribute.

I'd love to be shown to be wrong but I think the reference to 414(c) in the 415(f)(1) reg is pretty clear that it applies to partnerships as well for the one 415 limit rule. And recall partnership interest is greater of capital interest or profits interest.

Just looked it up. Regulation 1.415(f)(1) relevant part So as long as you are 50% or less you are OK and have separate 415 limits. If you are over 50% one limit.

You might want to check 415 limit. I believe there is a clause about replacing "80%" with "50%" for purposes of the 415(b) and (c) limit but I can't recall if it is "50%" or "more than 50%" for the aggregated 415 limit.

Based on the 2015 instructions (I haven't read the 2016 instructions), it would appear you need to file. See page 2 of the instructions https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i5500ez.pdf I base this on the example in the instruction and this being an ASG but someone may have a different reading then I do. I guess it comes do to do you view the Dr as standalone "employer" or the whole ASG as the "employer". Since for testing they are one big happy family under the ASG, I would take the conservative approach and file.

Thanks Dave great reference. However didn't "recent" IRS guidance on (really) older 5500s eliminate the need for the older forms? And by "recent" I'm thinking around 2 years ago. I thought now you just used the current forms but entered the old dates. Am I misremembering in my old age?

Thanks Rigby, that thought occurred to me as well.

I'm not sure. I'm just exploring the minimum funding issue right now. Someone else in the office is dealing with the potential client.

Unfortunately I tend to agree with you. I'm just wondering if anyone has any experiences with a similar situation or something definite one way or the other. I've done a few searches but can't find anything on point.

We have a potential referral and interesting situation. IRS is proposing disqualifying a plan back to it's inception saying it was never qualified. In cases such as this, do the minimum funding standards still apply? It would seem odd that they would apply since the disqualification would negate any deductions but I can't seem to find anything quite on point. Assume the Plan is not subject to PBGC coverage and the client does not want to enter a closing agreement to "fix" the disqualification.

To add if there is no provision for disability in the DC plan, the real impact on the participant is if the code on the 1099-R is on account of disability which is not subject to the early distribution penalty versus a regular distribution code that would likely be subject to the 10% penalty on early distribution, assuming the participant is on the younger side.

As far as I know the RMD is still required and does not require any spousal consent. You can let both parties know it was made and they can negotiate it into the settlement as to what both parties ultimately get.

You assume correct. Foreign retirement plans can not be rolled in to US plans as far as I know is any way.

1. OK. I assume your accountant has discussed reasonable compensation and you, the actuary, and accountant are comfortable with you receiving no W-2 pay. I'm not accountant so I don't opine on it, just know it can be an issue in S-corps. 3. Correct if you have no compensation you'll receive no SEP contribution. But since you are accruing service and presumably increased benefits in the DB plan there may be aggregation issues. 4. Sorry I don't really work with SEPs either just know they are there and that there is some interplay with 401(a) plans like a DB plan. Maybe someone else will chime in that can help you in that area.

There are only some exclusions you can make. You can excluded years before the age of 18 and in a new plan you can exclude service prior to the effective date of the plan (assuming no predecessor plan). You can not define vesting years on participation instead of service. Rules for changing between elapsed time and hours of service vesting or vice versa are addressed in the regulations.

1. How are you eligible for the DB plan accruals with no W-2 wages? There is a combined deduction limit. You can't use the IRS model SEP. 2. Maybe but there may be both discrimination and top-heavy implications. 3. SEPs have pretty liberal entry requirement and anyone who meets then entry condition and earns over a very small amount in compensation must be covered and receive a contribution. 4. I'd start by talking to the TPA or actuary who does your DB plan.

I believe it includes all days that end in a the letter y.

I agree. But the distinction in this case to me is an HCE is being given the option to continue making loan payments and not take taxable income while NHCEs are not given the same option. Sounds like a BRF failure to me.

Should be in the Participant Loan Program. Are other terminated employees given the option to continue repaying their loan after separation from service or does the loan become due and payable?

1 - I agree. Not a problem for 2015 annual addition. 2 - Agree subject to 25% deduction limit I see no reason why it can't be deducted for 2016. 3. - N/A because of 1 & 2.

You can change it so that future participants are subject to the 4 year schedule but folks that are already 100% vested can't be switched at this point as you'd have a 411(d) cutback. I mean I guess you could technically move folks with less than 3 years of service to the new schedule as long as you preserve the vesting they attained under the old schedule which is ...100%.

I don't know the answer to your question but my recommendation would be for you to see a qualified attorney who is has knowledge in the ERISA and IRA investment area.

Eligibility is not a protected benefit. If he's excluded and not eligible he doesn't get a TH minimum.