Bill Presson

Get a different lawyer.

Pretty sure the 5500 only deals with participants and not employees. Also a 5500 usually deals with a single plan. It’s possible that plan could have more than one benefit but it may not have all benefits. And not all benefits have enough participants to require reporting on a 5500. While 5500s and 990s are technically public documents, it’s bad form to identify an employer on the board.

Someone with expertise in welfare benefits 5500s will have to jump in because I don’t have that. Sorry.

Well I’m confused because I’m not aware of many data points that would be identical on those two forms. The name, address and EIN ought to match of course. But can you list a few examples of data points that should match? Please be specific.

Amicable or not, you need legal counsel to ensure your requests are met.

Corey, it would just be 3% for the 2024 year if adopted by 12/1/24, right?

Perhaps some of our legal eagles will chime in because I am not one. You may be right and have a defensible position. I've always viewed a QNEC done to pass an ADP test as different than a QNEC used under SCP to fix a missed deferral opportunity (mdo). Perhaps there is no difference. And perhaps there is no difference in the % contribution for the mdo and the additional earnings needed to satisfy the EPCRS SCP requirements. But the second use of the QNEC and especially the earnings always seemed different to me; more like the penalty for a prohibited transaction. Now we live in a time where employers are facing fiduciary lawsuits merely for using forfeitures to reduce a normal employer contribution because that's not deemed in the best interest of the participants. Not sure I would want to defend using forfeitures for correcting an employer error much less for the cost of the time value of money.

Can’t use plan assets to pay employer penalties.

Correct. Updated info goes in 1 & 2 and old info in 4a and b.

This just doesn't seem rational to me. Whatever/whomever precipitated the death, the coroner/medical examiner is going to determine the cause during the autopsy. And no police dept is going to just throw up their hands and say we may never know. Was it natural causes or did she just lose her balance? Or was there foul play? Regardless of that, the ME is going to complete the death certificate with something more than pending. Weird vibes on this.

Do those "standardized" prototype documents even exist in the wild anymore? I haven't seen one in years.

Rollover first? Or RMD first? Because the RMD has to come out if the participant will reach RMD age during the Distribution Calendar Year.

Just make sure the earnings for the HCEs are prior year since that's how the status is determined.

Damn.

For 2024 RMDs, Roth is excluded.

No.

Paul was more specific, but a corrective amendment for that one person is what I meant because I thought that's what you had said.

Why? Because that’s the solution.

You're reading the instructions correctly for the line. But, it's the number on line 5c(1) that determines whether you need an audit or not.

Might be an issue if the audit wasn't submitted with the original 5500-SF (and I'm not sure how it could have been). The amendment might generate a rejection letter for an incomplete filing in this case.

No, as long as the proper deadlines are met.

In my work with many professional service firms, they do these kinds of non qualified deferred comp programs quite often. Usually the partner will "retire" as a partner and continue working for 2-5 years. Those plans would almost always use 3401(a) as the definition of compensation because those non qualified distributions are considered earned income in that definition. Allows the former partner to still defer into the 401(k) plan if desired.

Owner only plans aren’t subject to ERISA Title I so 8955-SSA isn’t applicable.

Sent

But that one dealt with incidental limits in a DC plan and the impact that rollover funds might play. DB plans were never mentioned. Sorry that I’ve stepped away. I will send it to you this evening.