Bill Presson

Our basic plan document includes this in the Plan Compensation section "Plan Compensation generally includes amounts an Employee earns with a Participating Employer and amounts earned with a Related Employer (even if the Related Employer has not executed a Participating Employer Adoption Page under the Adoption Agreement). However, the Employer may elect under AA §5-3(h) to exclude all amounts earned with a Related Employer that has not executed a Participating Employer Adoption Page." I'm pretty sure it's in other document providers BPDs as well. It's my understanding that this allows that compensation to be included for testing without it having to adopt. If there are NHCEs, that's a different issue.

If you use this, you'll be good with most situations. There will be some changes in 2024. https://www.lfg.com/wcs-static/pdf/Attribution of Ownership in Retirement Plans - PDF.pdf

Amend to a safe harbor non elective plan for 2023.

I would step away from the table and let ERISA counsel step in.

Because there's nothing to amend in the document. The last day/1000 hours are imposed by the sponsor, not the document.

I haven't seen any answers yet either. I don't really understand the need for this when plans can just allow for in-plan Roth conversions.

I got the same thing. I appreciated Bob giving that example.

Agreed.

Not sure I know what you mean by "forfeited." Please explain. The solution is for the sponsor/trustee/fiduciaries to negotiate funds in a share class with lower or no revenue sharing.

They already have a plan. And based on your post, the employees are likely already eligible.

FWIW, we do back office actuarial work for a lot of TPAs around the country. Some with lots of plans and some with only a few. Let me know if anyone is interested.

Agreed Austin. I was against most of it from the first time I heard about it.

Ascensus does a LOT of business unbundled. We've got a lot of clients with them. Send me a message and I'll put you in touch with the head of their TPA relationship group and he'll help you make it so.

So, the policy was surrendered while still owned by the plan and the cash value was deposited into the annuity while still owned by the plan? Then there's no distribution and no taxable transaction. It's no different than selling a mutual fund and depositing the money into a money market account. Also, to be clear about the broker's comments: there was no "distribution" (as we use the term) and the money wasn't "rolled" (as we use the term).

Agreed. But I don't think that was the original question.

Peter knows what you want to know Arthur. And you know what the answer is too. He was pointing out that the CPA knows as well and that's why they are hesitant to act.

How was the annuity owned when this happened?

I always recommend using the relief programs provided.

Yes, the new practice can adopt the plan as the plan sponsor. Have old EIN adopt as participating ER.

1. I hated this provision from the moment I heard about it. We shouldn't be anywhere in this mix. 2. How does Congress think an emergency savings account as part of a plan is going to be cost effective? Not sure about others, but we're not planning on giving away our time. 3. I don't know the answer, Peter, but did I mention I hate this whole idea?

Eligibility/participation in the plan doesn't eliminate controlled group status though it might give you more coverage flexibility.

Perhaps. I've never had anyone look to do that, so I haven't researched it. But if someone really wants to keep the life insurance in place till they die, they need to get it out of the plan. And that ideally would happen 4-6 years after it first went in the plan. After that, it's a costly exercise.

Correct. K-1 from an S Corp is payments for being an owner. It's like getting a dividend check for owning stock in IBM. It's not earned income.

Our efast people got this today. I think it's legit but current people don't have to do anything for several months, so I'm waiting.

Also, if it's only the owner, what difference does it make if it's matching or non elective? The 415 and 404 limits will impact both the same.