Bill Presson

It was the same plan, so 001 is correct.

Welcome back, Larry!

Look at the investment statements. It's easy enough to see if the money came out or not. If the company is paying the premium (which I oppose), the best you could do is figure out how to treat that as contributions to the plan. If the only money in the plan is rollover money, then the insurance premium exceeded the incidental limits immediately and the entire premium each year is a taxable distribution. It's treated just like an in-service distribution. Rollover money doesn't count in the incidental calculations. How did the rollover money not exceed $250k? The premiums paid into the policy will have expenses and cost of insurance. Frankly, you've got a mess and people that only know parts of the rules sold this and set it up. You're best bet is to get ERISA counsel involved and see what can be salvaged. What you use as the beginning balance (and it's whatever the value was on 1/1/22) is the very least of the issues here.

If it's safe harbor, why are you even doing ADP/ACP?

Hourly is the way it would need to go. But, you'll want to know up front what the estimate is. They can't give a reasonable estimate until they look at everything to even know what the problems are. That initial review could easily be $2,000-$3,000 just to determine what is broken and how to fix it. Fixing it could easily be twice that much. TPAs historically undercharge for their work so you will likely find someone to do it for less. But if I was going to do it (which I'm not), I would get the review costs up front as a retainer and go from there.

You likely have some issues but I don't know if they are big or not. And there's no way to know without diving in and gathering all of the information. The problem isn't that it's too small of a job. The problem is that it's such a big job and they likely won't get paid for all their time.

They're being silly. Good stuff here: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/verifying-rollover-contributions-to-plans#:~:text=It's not necessary for the,a rollover contribution is valid.

Nevermind. Still don't have all the rules straight in my mind.

Austin, you do realize that removing the auto enroll will just require them to add it back in 2025, right?

If they're using rollover dollars to pay the premium, then it automatically exceeds the incidental limit because rollover dollars aren't included in the calculation. I'm also assuming the premiums are boing paid by the plan although that's not clear.

Yes.

Ha! That's sweet, but I'm senior discount eligible as well. Maybe the 4th was the cutoff date for April mailings.

I submitted April 5th. Nothing yet. Oh well, the current doesn't expire until 9/30/23.

If he wasn't eligible, then he didn't have an MDO. Amend the plan just to allow the PS for him and nothing else.

If you could get them to publish this guidance, it would be appreciated.

The company is the plan sponsor even if the company is a sole proprietor. If it is a sole proprietor they are required to get an EIN if they haven't before. If one person owns both companies, then it's a single employer for retirement plan purposes and doesn't matter what the businesses do.

Thanks for precisely quoting my bad grammar.

I'm just trying to find a reasonable way to make it work. The TPA doesn't have to make the decision. The Employer does (absent 3(16)) as it falls on them.

FWIW, we used the C3 restatements to change all our plans to IRA rollover on force-outs just so we wouldn't have to deal with this anymore.

What about her purchasing his share of the home?

Agreed with above.

A 401(a) plan is just an employer sponsored retirement plan (eg profit sharing or money purchase). If never seen "thrift plan" used in conjunction with 401(a). That's usually reserved for when the staff are contributing. And, I usually hear 401(a) from non-profit people when they a have a 403(b) in place as well.

I've seen this occasionally when an owner/participant wants to take distributions on a regular basis. It's much easier and cheaper to get an IRA distribution than it is to get one from the plan (if done correctly). It's usually when the owner wants to continue making contributions as well, but also if there are illiquid assets in the plan.

The basic plan document may have info on how the payments are applied. Vesting is just one of the issues with the repayments. Distribution timing would also be affected.