Bill Presson

You really need an attorney to assist you.

With it being an asset sale, the termination can be 12/31/20. It could even continue into next year. The employees are all 100% and considered terminated. So watch the coverage and discrimination tests in the contribution.

You need to contact your HR because we can only answer generally without seeing the plan documents. There are really two possibilities: 1. Your plan matches each payroll and ONLY considers that payroll in the calculation. If this is the case, there's nothing to be done. 2. Your plan matches each payroll and then does an additional calculation at the end of the year. We call this a true-up. It's not required but many plans do this. If this is the case, then you'll get your additional match under this calculation. Your HR dept can tell you which applies.

I understand your point. But that wasn't my point. If they are concerned that the plan will be top heavy, then when it is top heavy, the 3% SHNEC does satisfy the TH contribution requirement. So, my question to the OP stands: what is the concern?

It's also very likely that Lincoln shut off new money into a fixed account paying that high a return.

I just don't know if I've ever seen an ESOP actually hold the stock of two separate companies. I'm thinking EBECatty is likely correct on this.

Also, if the plan is providing a 3% SHNEC, then it satisfies the top heavy contribution requirement. So what's the concern??

It's amazing to me how many people seem to ignore this. I've seen administrators with a caseload that were paid 95% of the total billing. The owner couldn't figure out why they were losing money. While I was at the CPA firm for 12+ years, their plan was 2.5 times. And they ran it pretty narrowly.

Are you saying the same ESOP owns 80% of both companies?

Typically we'll forward an email where the documents were already provided and ask if they need any help with something.

Typically, RK is a recordkeeper.

Hate to be a pest here, but in the first post, you said the plan is safe harbor. Are there really dollars subject to the ACP? Is there a match that's not safe harbor? Hate to be pessimistic, but this is just odd to me.

The SIMPLE money can remain in the IRA accounts established. For under 2 year accounts, I'm pretty sure it's required.

No. The 415 regs (and the document) state what is supposed to happen to a 415 excess so that's pretty straightforward. I am curious how after tax money for an owner passed the ACP test. It's pretty rare.

But his beneficiary designation for the plan was for his account in the plan. I think it's irrelevant to other inherited assets. The fact that they are both participants in the plan is a smokescreen.

CBZ's post also points out "total of the plan's assets and the assets of all other one-participant plans maintained by the employer....does not exceed $250,000" which could be an issue depending on how long the controlled group has existed and how much the assets were in total for both plans.

I would absolutely do DFVC. Frankly, I'm surprised the IRS accepts any reasonable cause letters anymore.

We use PensionPro and are very happy with it. We have 115 employees in 9 offices (albeit all remote currently) so we do need all the bells and whistles. I sat in on a webcast yesterday that included some info on this https://try.forcemanager.com/5500-pricing-tpa/ It looked pretty interesting. They have a version specifically for TPAs and I think they are partnering with ERISApedia? We've had some of our acquisitions use PensionPal and they were happy with that. WCP

Agreed. I wasn't meaning to imply they could merge. Just pointing out that we've done what they want to do in a situation where the plans could merge.

If the plans were merging then I would say yes. We've done it when we start a new PS and merge in at the first of the year. But in this case, the 403(b) is going away. Maybe someone will correct me but I don't see how. WCP

No.

Yes. The deadline is 12/31/22.

Assuming this is the first plan that the sponsor has had, then the 5500 is correct and the plan isn't. I would make the change to 001 in writing with a brief explanation of the typographical error and move on. Interesting that the CPA firm never mentioned it before. Or the firm that did the last restatement. WCP