Lou S.

Unusual but don't see where it would be discriminatory. I have seen plans that limit hardships to no more than 1 per calendar year but never seen one that puts a life time cap on it. I would think the biggest issue might be tracking such a cap, especially over time if the plan moves through multiple record keepers and you could easily inadvertantly fail to follow the terms of the plan by accidentially granting a 3rd hardship.

I would report the change as used to be done without issue. Though as you note CP-406 may be coming. Just prepare the client for it ahead of time and be ready to send a copy of the already filed form to IRS noting the proper change. It'd be nice if their form worked like it was actually intended to do but the reality is that often it does not.

Does Plan A allow for Hardships? Does the participant qualify for a hardship under the definition of Hardship in Plan A? If the answer to both of these questions is yes, why wouldn't the participant be able to take a hardship?

I don't recall ever attaching copies of cancelled checks to the 501. Is this a new requirement? It's been a few years since we terminated a PBGC covered plan.

Did he give any citation for his reasoning? My understanding is you typically have a deduction problem with the already made SEP contribution. That is you wind up having a partially non-deductible contribution to the SEP as the CB contribution is typically going to be well in excess of 25% of pay so to the extent that the SEP contribution is above 6% of pay it is non-deductible and subject to an excise tax.

Dead lord do you want crashes from folks falling asleep at the wheel?

Does this mean we can raise fees and they will now be considered reasonable?

A fair market appraisal of the the property should be used.

We typically treat it as the first pay day after entry so that would be 7/5 but I think at long as your administrative policy is clear and consistently applied it could be either.

https://www.irs.gov/irb/2014-17_IRB/ar08.html IRS announcement 2014-16 specifically lists 4/30/2016 as the date to adopt by. Where are you getting the 4/30/2017 date from?

The PPA pre-approved deadline for DC plans was April 30, 2016 The PPA pre-approved deadline for DB plans has not yet been announced to my knowledge but to get the extended restatement period for a DB plan I believe you need an executed Form 8905 prior to the end of the 5 year restatement period.

Good to know. Thanks for the cite.

I do not recall such nor do I see a change in the 5500 instruction on "Who can file". I always though it was odd that a partnership than had only partners and spouses could file a 5500-EZ but a corp that covered only owners and their spouses could not file an EZ if there was more than one owner.

It's not waived. I think he means the 5 year requirement has been satisfied since the conversion was in 2011, then 2011 was year 1, 2015 was year 5.

Because the DOL says you have to count vacation hours?

Are you sure? In this case I thought the plan failed ADP testing but refunds were not made because the deferrals are recharaterized as catch-up and retained by the plan. I fully admit this could be one of those strange IRS loopholes but my understanding is the key's have an allocation rate in this case for TH purposes but I'll be the first to admit my understanding of this could be faulty. I will also say I've never come across this particular set of facts in practice so I haven't researched it beyond cursory academic review.

What is your arraignment on fees? They could be paid by the plan sponsor, the participant and/or alternate payee could pay them directly or it could be deducted from the participant's account assuming the proper disclosures have been made. We typically bill the Plan Sponsor who then passes the cost on to the Participant who directs us to deduct it from his account and this is typically split between the Participant and Alternate Payee though the terms of the QDRO sometimes state who will be responsible for the fees.

Sounds like you may have a disqualifying defect in your plan if any of those employees are non highly compensated and worked more than 1000 hours in any plan year. Edit and to echo BG5150 - If the irrevocably waived participation you have a coverage failure in every single year that anyone of them is eligible. If they simply chose not to make 401(k) contributions, then they are eligible participants with a 0% contribution rate and as such would need to receive a top-heavy minimum. If the plan is a safe harbor matching plan where deferral and match are the ONLY contributions and the employees all elected not to make 401(k) contributions (not irrevocably waive participant) then the plan is deemed not top-heavy and no TH minimum is required. But if they are making a PS contrib, then t he TH minimum would kick in.

Yes and no. You'd have to track the pre-amendment partially vested funds and allow those to be available for in-service distribution. It might be administratively unfeasible to track but you can do it without it being a cut-back.

I believe the answer is yes, though I do not believe the answer has always been yes. This may be help for you https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/rollovers-of-after-tax-contributions-in-retirement-plans

Have you talked to the auditor of the large plan? Are they recording the merger in on the 2015 Form 5500 or 2016 Form 5500?

Is the Key an HCE? Does the Plan have fail safe language for 410(b)? Is the Plan's allocation formula cross tested, pro-rata or integrated? What dos the plan document say?

Once you have a non SH plan you are locked into non-safe harbor plan for the the year. You can amend for 2017.

The correct answer is 12 in your example. Yes it can push folks over the audit limit with new participants.

The investment committee should keep minutes of the decision to add the QDIA. An amendment is not required. You will need to comply with the annual QDIA notice if you want the fiduciary relief that comes with defaulting folks into the QDIA.