Lou S.

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.

Assuming a calendar year plan the former owner would be a key employee for 2014 (more than 5% owner in current year) and 2015 (more than 5% owner in the prior year if he was still employed) after which he would be a former-key employee (unless key by some other reason) and he would be ignored for TH testing in the numerator and denominator. If the former owner sold his shares and separated from employment in 2014 he would drop off the test in 2015.

I believe you are correct, that is the wording of the "Maybe Notice" might be very important whether or not you can exclude HCEs from the safe harbor contribution.

Can I assume the plan covers all NHCEs or is that a bad assumption? I am not sure if this qualifies for SCP but I believe it would assuming a large majority of NHCEs are already covered and you communicate to HCEs that they are are now covered. The reason I feel this may qualify for SCP and not require VCP is because you are generally allowed to discriminate with respect to 1 HCE or group of HCEs over another without IRS issues. I would say that VCP would likely be required if there are any NHCEs similarly situated with the HCEs who were allowed in who have been excluded from the plan and you would like have to bring them in probably with a QNEC. But my analysis of the situation here could be off.

I don't work with SEP but have to feel this is not all that uncommon have you tried the IRS SEP fix it giude? https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/sep_fixit_guide.pdf

The loan is part of a participant's account balance, why wouldn't you include it? It is simply another asset of the plan.

The second one is an easy answer - you have to wait to 2016 to file the EZ. The first one I think once you have a filing requirement you continue to have one even if you now would qualify of the exemption because you are under $250K. I'm 99% confident that was the rule when the 5500 limit was $100K but they may have changed the rule when they raised the limit to $250K and i missed that part.