Lou S.

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.

Was it delivered by an officer of the court? Signed by a judge? Has your attorney reviewed it?

It's too bad that all too often the health care system in the USA sucks balls with respect this issue. But that's really not relevant to the OPs question.

I guess the ex figures better late than never. I don't know what is stated in the order but is sounds like you may need your own attorney to represent you in this matter. If you are a storage nut it would probably help your case if you have the original order and can clearly show that it is 3/17th of your accrued benefit from 1992 as well as a 1992 benefit statement showing what that accrued benefit is but I'm guessing these are nowhere to be found? I will say I am not a lawyer and not an expert in QDROs perhaps some of the QDRO experts will have some more specific advice for you.

I believe you have technical failure to follow the terms of the Plan. At the very least I'd send the client a CYA letter informing him of his required contribution. Now would the IRS disqualify the plan over a missed contribution to an owner? Probably not but you never know the mood of any particular auditor.

I assume he's the owner and only participant? You can file an EZ no problem. I believe you can also file an SF checking the box for 1 participant plan which drops off the problematic questions that generally don't allow you to file a 5500-SF in lieu of the 5500 with schedule I.

It is 401(a)(17) you are talking about not 415. But it goes by the definition of compensation in the plan. Your plan could be drafted to limit the deferral based on comp only up to the 401(a)(17) limit but that's not generally how documents are drafted.

Unrelated employers. He could get the the 415 limit in both plans if he has sufficient income and both employers were so inclined. That is to say other than the 402(g) limit which you correctly note is tied to SSN, neither employer is limited by what the other employer does.

Is plan B terminating or merging? If plan B is merging with Plan A then I believe Plan A will have to accept the loan as a participant asset. Unless there is a provision in the loan documents that can accelerate payment of the loan for the participant in Plan B upon merger. If plan B is terminating the loan will become due and Plan A may or may not accept the loan note in kind as a rollover, many plans will not accept a participant loan as a rollover though some will in this case to keep participants happy.

A partnership with enough ownership to not be subject to DOL but not enough to be a majority owner for PBGC? Would seem an odd combo but I think it is technically possible though I'm having a hard time coming up with specific facts where it might come into play.

First it sounds like you are violating the CODA rules by essentially making the elective deferral limit $53,000. Second is this legal for the 3 non-shareholder employees? That is yes these all sound like elective deferrals subject to the 402(g) limit.

Tom I disagree. 1/1/2015 - 12/31/2015 he is still a key employee due to owning more than 5% in the prior year (2014). He becomes a former key on 1/1/2016. I don't see anyway around that in the code & regs.