Lou S.

We have not tried one since the DFVC program has been around. That seems to be the way they want you to fix late filings. But back in the day, it was quite common to get the penalty waived for "reasonable cause." Good luck. If you do try it please let us know your experience with it this time around.

I might be tempted to treat him as a re-hired employee and follow those terms if it isn't directly addressed in the document. I could be wrong but I'm guessing the client has this provision so the transfer from one company to the other is more seamless and that the employee would immediately be eligible but that's just a guess on my part. Also I might look at what is written in the SPD on this situation.

Estimates here - http://www.401khelpcenter.com/2017_401k_plan_limits.html#.WAUnPslUPOM Third week off October is official release so yeah we'll know exact for sure "soon".

I think you only need one if they are the same. I believe you still need two if they are different. But I have not confirmed that.

I think you would be OK with something like 4 month eligibility first of the month following and base compensation on full year. That way owner enters 10/1/16 and employee enters 1/1/17 if I've got the dates right. I think where you might have an issue is if you make the eligibility less liberal in the future. You might have some testing issues in the transition year. I think were you might also have a problem is if you have something like 1 year wait but anyone employed as of May 1 (or whatever the start date of the company is) is immediately eligible. That's where the "most liberal eligibility" condition might come back to bite you.

The question becomes why is the audit late? Did the client not hire an auditing firm soon enough or did the auditing firm drag it's heals. That might determine who should pay the DFVC filing fee.

I think the best option is to file late under the DFVC program when the audit is complete. What may or may not work is the solution you said of attaching a statement "audit not complete" in lieu of the actual audit and filing an amended return when you have the audit but you technically do not have a completed filed Form 5500. I have no direct experience in trying this so I can't say if it would work or not. In the old days before EFAST I think this was sometimes used as a de facto 2nd extension, or so I have heard, but again I have no direct experience with doing that, just what I've heard.

Do you meet the exemptions listed in those sections? I believe those are only applicable to short plan year of less than a certain duration where the following 5500 will have a audit covering the full year and the short year.

I agree with the 2 posters above but if you want to file amended returns, knock yourself out.

You can date the amendment anything you want but if there is a law suit for the overlapping period I'm guessing both parties get named and they let the courts decide who the responsible fiduciary is (was) at the time.

It depends on the provisions of the plan. There is the 5 year rule and the 1 year rule. The Plan must comply with one of the two rules but it can allow for the beneficiary to make an election or it can state the rule it will follow and not give the beneficiary discretion. So when in doubt read the terms of the Plan Document.

As they are "elective deferrals" I would assume they have a very low priority on the order in which they come out of person's paycheck. I have no legal basis for this conclusion but in practice it is the way I have seen them handled by nearly every payroll system I've come in contact with.

It is right in the tax code §72(p)(2)(A)

The Plan almost certainly will not talk to you. You need an attorney in this matter if your husband is in fact hiding assets as you suggest.

I think it may depend. If folks have already earned a right to an allocation or accrual based on the higher definition of pay then amending it would be likely a prohibited cutback. If no one has earned a right to the allocation yet (such as a DC plan with a last day requirement) then you are probably OK to retro amend the definition of compensation.

How are your fees disclosed to participants?

Can't file an EZ for 2015 as the plan covered one non-owner for some portion of the year. Namely 1/1 until the employee was paid out. If no new employer enter he can file EZ for 2016.

As Rigby correctly points out this will be governed by the terms of the plan and the language of the (Q)DRO which can't grant additional payment rights to the alternate payee (your ex) that aren't allowed by the Plan. For example - Some plans may allow an alternate payee to receive their benefits immediately, even if the participant doesn't have that option. Though I think this is more common in defined contribution plans than defined benefit plans. Others might allow the alternate payee to elect payments to begin at the participant's normal or earliest retirement age even if the participant continues employment and defers retirement. But without reading the actual plan document and (Q)DRO we are just speculating here.

Dear retiree, Please note you only have x # of remaining payments from the Plan. Sincerely, The Plan.

Likely expensively and with a good ERISA attorney.

I think you are fine curing the loan the first time it is discovered "and putting in procedures to avoid it happening again". I think you have not cured it if you repeat the pattern on a regular basis.

I believe this falls under 4979 and the due date is "the last day of the 15th month after the close of the plan year in which the excess contributions or excess aggregate contributions relate" which for calendar year 2015 plans would be March 31, 2017. See Page 2 of IRS instriuctions https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i5330.pdf

I could be wrong but I thought if you could show the money was rolled in from an ERISA plan it retained the ERISA protections even if over the state limits. But my understanding is similar to jpdrews. That is it varies by state and some states have limits on what is protected.

You could probably allow it. The only issue I could see is if the existing loans are all or substantially all to highly compensated employees but you've stated that isn't the case. You might want to document the administrative procedures and even go so far as to adopt an amendment something to the effect of "Due to the acquisition of the XYZ company, the ABC will accept rollovers of loans in-kind from the participants of XYZ company who rollover their accounts to the ABC plan and will allow the loans to be repaid under their original term in the XYZ plan. New loans will still not be offered in the ABC Plan" Or something along those lines. This is assuming ABC company wants the head ache of administering rolled in loans form XYZ.

What is the worst that happens if they "disqualify" the plan? Disallow the deduction that wasn't taken and income on the trust assets that he's already picked up? Do you have a 5500 filing requirement? And if you don't file is there a penalty? I mean it's a really odd set of facts.