Bill Presson

Ugh. So start a plan for 2020 and merge it into the current plan and become a participating employer. What one can do this way, one should be able to do the other way and save the client money.

Well, that's a very nice compliment, but let's don't get carried away here.

Since they are considered a single employer filer, I can't think of anything. If it was a multiple employer plan, then there would be. WCP

This an excellent description and looks like (with the right loan policy), I'm wrong.

So far, I appear to be in the minority here.

You can (and I think should) do this as well, but that number can't be used to file the 5500.

I definitely think you are wrong especially about aggregating the balances in two plans to determine the amount available from one plan. If a source is unavailable, i don't see how that is any different than trying to use unvested money as collateral.

It needs to be brought up to date. Whether that's a formal restatement or adopting the "termination package" that every document provider offers is dependent on the provider.

We are a little flexible in that regard. I personally think anyone that had a balance at any time in the year should get one, but I get push back from others that I'm being ridiculous.

I would be concerned about creating a precedent and standard. What if one were reviewed/warned but not the 99 others? Or 99 were reviewed/warned but not the 1 other?

It needs to be distributed to everyone with a balance whether or not still employed and to everyone eligible whether or not they have a balance.

Agree with Bird.

Excellent.

That's not what shERPA said. The PLAN was supposed to be the owner and the check payable to the Trustee of the plan. If the owner of the policy was the participant, that means the policy was never actually part of the plan. That is an issue.

I'm still confused. Multiple times you've said the ESOP holds no stock but also multiple times you've mentioned the stock traded on a monthly basis. Either the ESOP holds stock today or it doesn't.

Retired.

Correct. It's not the same $550. It's just the one is eligible for catch up and the other isn't.

If you make changes to the document that aren't allowed by the document, it eliminates the preapproved status. You don't want to do that. You should hire a TPA to help you. Let me know generally where you're located and I'll see if I can recommend someone. But you don't want to jeopardize the tax status of your retirement. Spend a little money and get it done correctly.

It's legal. They just don't know what to do.

@Bird I think you meant to type this.

The accounts should be in the name of the plan and with the plan TIN. Also, you mentioned transferring balances in excess of $250k. For filing purposes, all accounts are aggregated.

Yes. Assuming no stock attribution any other way. That would be an interesting discussion.

Still might need to consider it a partial termination and vest 100%. If not, might be able to use it to pay fees. And, if there's no employees, might want to terminate the plan.

Correct. And it doesn't matter that they are brothers.