Bill Presson

Hopefully the account was set up correctly and the trustee has signature authority and not the participant.

So if Johnny starts a business with no employees and wants a retirement plan, he has to wait to satisfy whatever the service requirement is going to be going forward? Maybe I'm way out of it, but I've been doing this for 35+ years and that's way more conservative than I've ever known anyone to be. I just don't see it as an issue. Now, if the owner did this and then had employees who had to wait for 21/1 and then he wants to do another waiver to bring in a spouse or child? I would completely agree with you on the second waiver.

Funeral homes will provide very detailed expenses and want the money up front. I guess the "cushion" could be the increase for expected taxes.

Bird and Lou are correct. Make sure you use the the actual fair market value for the purchase and not just the cash value. The insurance company can provide that.

That design is quite common for a new employer. Obviously if the employer has been around long enough, it's not an issue. What would be your solution if not this?

Well, that seems to be a stupid answer to me.

Agree with Bird. I've told clients that I'll only stay involved if they get an ERISA attorney blessing on the transaction.

Surely the doc has a CPA, right? Most of them can handle this and that's where I would send them.

Not if you are requiring 2 years eligibility. ***edited to add that my brain wasn't registering the 401(k) part and this was a silly answer***

He can disclaim it, but he's not in control of who gets it. If there is no secondary beneficiary, then her estate determines the recipient.

Agree with BG, but all the dates you mentioned don't make sense to me.

If he's currently employed and satisfied the service requirements, I don't see how he's not eligible. But then he could be excluded by category.

Not any good ones that I can think of.

As an FYI, I had always considered a "Related Employer" to be a firm that had some connection (like 1 person owned 100% of A and 50% of B with another person owning the remaining 50%) whether or not it actually reached controlled group or ASG status. Found out a short while ago that the plan document actually defines Related Employer and it has to be part of CG or ASG. Others might have already known this but I had assumed incorrectly. Pays to RTFD.

John posted it this morning a few messages above yours.

No. If they don't respond they get the annuity.

Ms Kirsten Curry is the founder and owner of that shop. I would whole heartedly endorse her and her work.

Also remember that the plan has to have more than 120 participants on the first day of the plan year to require an audit. That's anyone eligible (whether or not they have a balance) and anyone terminated with a balance of any size.

A blackout notice is only required if there's going to be a blackout. If the plans are both with the same RK and the change happens over night (or over a weekend) then a blackout notice wouldn't be necessary. If the participant log in, etc remains the same, then that won't need to be mentioned. But for the ones where the name would change, you'll want to give them a heads up. And a general notice/explanation is always good (even if not required) when you're dealing with someone's money.

Redcloud, you better take Peter up on this.

Did you not get my text? Or did you not want to use that one?

Whatever the new name is. The critical pieces the IRS/DOL need are the plan number and the EIN

Wrong track. Just file a single 5500 for 2020. Put the new sponsor info in section 2 on the first page. Put the old sponsor info in section 4 on the first page. (I'm assuming this is an SF, I didn't look at the regular 5500).

Agree with BG.

What does the document actually say? Most say something like "as soon as administratively feasible" following termination of employment. So if it's not administratively feasible to pay her until the 2020 is done, then tell the employer to tell her to wait. Someone has to be willing to take a little heat here and not cave.