Bill Presson

We have a large number of them as well. As BG mentioned, the vast majority are single owner (sole prop, single member llc, single owner s corp), but it's not unusual to have multiple owners and no employees. And we do ask. I haven't run into issues historically, but I'm very curious where this thread is going.

That's the definition of an owner only plan.

If you really feel badly for them, do the restatement (and termination package) as a gift. That way it gets done right and you can sleep at night.

You need to make sure the problem remains the client's and does not become yours. If I were in your situation, I would explain that there are lots of penalties associated with not doing the things you recommend and you're not an attorney (I'm assuming). If they want to terminate without doing what you recommend, they need legal counsel and you'll follow counsel's advice.

Well, someone gets to make the decision on when the plan was really established.

@ombskidthey have to make the deferral election by 12/31 of the year for which the election applies.

😉 Form 8109-B. I think that's been gone for quite some time. I remember them fondly.

The participant keeps the extra $1,000 and the employer puts the $1,000 back in the plan. There is no credit for future use.

And the incidental limits don't apply because the dollars are eligible for in-service distribution. If "seasoned" dollars are used in excess of the incidental limits, it's a taxable distribution. Also, even though it's not mentioned, rollover amounts are not "contributions" and are not included in the incidental limits test at all.

For IRAs, absolutely. For retirement plans? Who?

😂😂

We see this very consistently now.

Mine says I last won on May 4th.😉

Couple of thoughts: 1. He won't be an HCE until later in his employment (not sure of his pay in 2022). 2. If he's eligible, he has to get a top heavy minimum (I would assume).

Unless you're doing a whole bunch, it's likely not worth whatever effort you make. You can probably code the whole thing in FTW in an hour+.

Well it's not a QDRO when the plan first gets it. The Plan Administrator has to determine it's Qualified and most plans have a process by which that happens including notifying all parties. I recommend following those procedures.

If Pennsylvania doesn't tax retirement plans, then the basis would be irrelevant.

How is #2 "Fees and expenses for...investment management.." not a "management fee on the investments"??

I didn't realize this. Wow. That would suck to contribute during your working career in Pennsylvania and not get a deduction and then retire to a state that does tax the distribution (which I understand Pennsylvania mostly doesn't).

For a firm that had an ongoing document maintenance fee, they might not charge.

Then Bank should not have opened the account. Good grief. Did they use the corporate EIN or at least use the TIN? Likely nothing will happen, but it's stupid to me.

If X acquired Y, your best bet is to likely take advantage of the 410b6 transition phase. Leave Y alone and keep the plan in place until the end of the year. Start a new plan for X if you wish. Then merge them and turn the safe harbor off for 2023. That's just one option. The best option would have been to make all the decisions before the purchase.

As others said, it's quite common to have 2 plans in this situation. Employees covered under a collective bargaining agreement aren't required to be included in the testing of your original plan. Still, the sentence above confused me.

Yes. Receiving an IRS letter does not disqualify an employer from using DFVC. But don't wait around too long.

The old volume submitter plans are now non-standardized prototypes under the C3 version.