Bill Presson

Calavera already gave you the answer: 1, 2 & 5. 3 & 4 are not part of the controlled group.

If there's nothing that needed a 2021 date, why risk it?

You only receive attribution if you own over 50%. You don't attribute to an adult (child or parent) if you own over 50%.

This was my "favorite" and I couldn't come up with aggregation last night. I kept thinking "attribution" and I knew that wasn't right.

Gotta admit, Mike, this confuses me. Why wouldn't someone show a catch-up contribution for someone 50 or over? May not HAVE to do it in a solo plan, but can.

I think a change in control of the assets of the trust is kind of a big deal.

Well the deferral limit for 2021 is $19,500 with $6,500 catchup. So 2021 has a $26,000 limit. The employer contributions don't count against that limit. This thread has me a little concerned.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

Based on what you just said, I think the IRS is just wrong and you need to escalate to a manager. The plan is still the same plan, just with a different sponsor. That happens pretty regularly.

Under the "facts" you've provided, there is no correct answer. You'll need to go back to the attorneys.

Make sure you address any end of year "true up" issues as well. Might be additional match required.

I don't understand how someone can sell the assets of a company, but not the stock of the company and the buyer gets the EIN. Something is wrong with your information. The EIN and the stock of the company are inseparable. I don't care so much about the name, that's an asset. WCP

After the first couple of paragraphs I was confused by who you meant when you said company and client etc. Can you add names like Old Co and New Co for clarification? Because I've worked on these situations lots of times. Sometimes Old Co keeps the plan going. Sometimes New Co takes over sponsorship. Shouldn't be an issue either way.

I thought this was a political post. 😇

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/statutory-employees

We've often stopped new loans while grandfathering in the existing loans. No issues.

By irrelevant, I mean the k-1 amount, not the entity. This is a pretty classic ASG. I'm betting that they are paying Betty a w-2 from Company X, because the k-1 to S Corp A is 25% of the total and the k-1 to S Corp B is 75% of the total. That's their way of evening things up. Company X should be the sponsor with S Corp A & B as participating employers. Everyone would be getting w-2 comp from one of the entities, so it's a pretty easy allocation.

When you say "other partner only receives a K1 from the partnership" you need to keep clear exactly who that partner is. You've indicated it's an S Corp and not a person. So it's irrelevant.

As Lou mentioned, it's facts and circumstances if you miss the 12/1 date. But if you can document that a meeting was held, that helps. If you just started the plan, I think that would help. If you had been doing a match, but it's now a SH match, I think that would help. And the further into January that the first paycheck is cut helps as well.

Correct, no double attribution. And the father doesn't get attributed the grandfather's ownership because the father is over 21 and owns less than 50%. However, the grandfather DOES get attributed the father's stock because he owns more than 50%.

The retirement plan software that I've been exposed to over my career (ASC, Relius, Datair, FTW), do a decent job of creating an amortization schedule and setting up a loan. But they are not designed like bank loan software. So changes are incredibly clunky at best. It's also very difficult to get the TPA admin software and a recordkeeper's software to agree to $ with a single loan that never changes. So, any refinance is very manual, fraught with probable errors and guaranteed to be a revenue loser to the TPA.

The answer, we know, is that it has to be an ASG. It's a classic, textbook ASG.

Not that I know of, but yuck.

Correct.

Is the top heavy vesting schedule really 100% and the regular vesting schedule isn't that would be unusual. In any case, if it IS true, then when the plan becomes top heavy, all of the profit sharing contributions are then 100% vested. You don't have a vesting schedule for part of the profit sharing contribution and another one for another part.