Bill Presson

If I had thought about it, I would have made the effort to do so! 😁

Thanks for saying hello!

If the employee was a participant on 1/1/21, then SF

Ms Vicki, jeans and a nice shirt will be fine. Speakers usually dress nicer and I'll always have on a bow tie. But you'll fit right in without any issues.

Agree with EBE. I have spoken to a very good TPA friend who knows her stuff about CALPERS and she told me that remote employees in California were subject to the coverage rules. FWIW.

Agreed. It also tends to defeat the advantage of a prevailing wage provision in the plan because, if it's a CODA, the amounts are subject to all the FICA, etc, labor costs.

With the 3% SHNEC, you lock in your cost in advance. With the others, your contribution is dependent on what the NHCs contribute.

Timing of the divorce is relevant. Also, have they had any minor children during this time?

I think it matters depending on whether they are intended to be in the plan for the whole or part year. We typically include the "entry" date since that will correspond to when the employer allowed them to defer (for example) and we want that part to be clear.

Agreed. Same.

Agreed. Just tell him to make sure the entities overlap in existance.

Agreed

HCE determination (and lots of other things) is made under section 318 and is different than attribution for controlled groups (section 1563). Under 318, a parent is deemed to own a child's stock no matter the age of the child or the percentage ownership in the business. I love this summary from Lincoln. https://www.lfg.com/wcs-static/pdf/Attribution of Ownership in Retirement Plans - PDF.pdf

You're going to have to clarify all your comments. I can't tell what is happening, especially with this bold part.

On the "no participation" make sure they aren't named as officers in the other company and don't have any signature authority.

1. Do they have a minor child? 2. Is it a community property state? 3. The spousal attribution exception from the IRS: EXCEPTION: No attribution between spouses if there is no: • direct ownership, • participation in company, and • no more than 50% of business gross income is passive investments. See 1.414(c)-4(b)(5)(ii).

Having completed deferral paperwork is ideal. But it's really not required. The daughters likely said, "mummy/daddy, please don't take more money out of my pay!" and that's the end of it. Are they going to testify otherwise?

We can't set up all the new plans, so we're grateful for the silly people that screw things up and enable us to grow via takeovers.

Generally speaking, we're interested and willing to work with most advisors. We want them to be open and honest about their capabilities and work with us in serving the client and not just as a gatekeeper. With that said, the vast majority of our business comes through the advisor to us. It is an incredibly rare situation for us to have a client come to us without an advisor already in the mix.

I would be interested in a way of doing a retroactive merger. I'm not aware that can work.

Can't do it. Create a new plan and merge them. Should have allowed PS in the 401(k) from the beginning.

Agreed. And document everything.

Agree with Belgarath. The 1099 is issued based on what transaction took place from the plan. What happens after that is irrelevant to the plan.

I just don't understand why people intentionally create hardships for themselves and others.

The 50% of the balance amount for a loan is only relevant when the loan is issued. After that, the participant still has access to all the rights in the plan.