Bill Presson

Unless the plan is written poorly, the a17 limit is just applied when tested at the end of the year. Also, the 402g limit is likely to put the cap on any match far ahead of a compensation limit.

I question whether it is possible for a plan to fail coverage the way you have described. Show the numbers for the test.

A SIMPLE IRA has to be the only plan sponsored by the employer. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-faqs-regarding-simple-ira-plans

EZ late filer penalty cap is 3x$500

Correct the address.

Ken is right. It would be much easier to never rehire a terminated participant.

A SIMPLE IRA has to be the exclusive plan for the employer (which equals both entities), so I don’t see any of these examples working.

I disagree with this. If it's an asset purchase, the seller will continue on and can maintain their plan with no impact on the buyer's plan (old or new) whatsoever.

I can’t envision a circumstance where an RMD isn’t required.

Always need to be careful of looking at equivalencies in the document for salaried people if actual hours aren’t tracked. Just a word of warning. I would be very nervous about being told that a typical owner of a business hadn’t worked 1,000 hours in that business by September.

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/advisory-opinions/settlor-expense-guidance

Probably "60 days of service..." instead of "90 days of service..." would work better. 😇

Typically the merger of plans is based on the transaction date of the sponsors of the two plans. I’ve never seen plan custodians (RKs or BDs) able to make a merger/transfer of assets happen on that date. Maybe you have. Just not the world I’ve inhabited. So having the plans merge on X date and the assets transferring within a reasonable period after that just hasn’t been a huge issue.

Also, people often miss that the after-tax money has to be deposited within 30 days after the end of the plan year to count for 415 limits.

Typically one would remain the sponsor of the current plan and the other would spin off into its own plan. The spin off would likely be a short plan year unless crafted carefully at 1/1. But that’s just the way I would have done it.

Why/how is she eligible to be forced out?

FWIW, and I understand this isn’t helpful, I despise everything about this rule; especially the application of the unique compensation amount.

Peter, there is no limit to what a participant may perceive.

Also wondering if they have heard about making donations to not for profits from IRAs to eliminate RMDs. I get questions every year about doing that from the retirement plan.

I agree with David but good merger amendments/resolutions will specify that the assets in the old plan are part of the surviving plan as of the merger date.

Can’t amend the allocation retroactively. What you can do is start a new PS only plan retroactively with the allocation method you want. Then merge that plan and the 401(k) in 2025, if you want. Or keep it as a stand alone PS. We’ve done it both ways.

Bumping this thread because this is the exact question for which I cannot find an answer. I think that having the limitation year overlap the 12 month "time out" period could/should/would violate the successor plan issue. But, for the life of me, I can't find an actual answer on this.

I’m not sure what is being asked anymore.

If they have met their required beginning date, then, yes, they have to take their RMD before distributing the rest of their account.

How is that a failure under 414s?