Bill Presson

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

That's what I would do. Nothing you're doing actually affects the 401(k). And nothing you're doing will make anything worse for the SIMPLE.

Well, apparently it lives somewhere! A little surprised this issue hasn't shown up before.

FDP software still lives?? Wasn't it purchased by Relius?

SECURE Act allows you to make existing 401(k) plans SHNEC retroactively. He's got until 11/30/20 to do it and use 3% and until 12/31/21 to do it and use 4%.

Why?

Can't he elect safe harbor nonelective for the year and forget the testing?

Yes, but in the middle of the current restatement period, we would just accomplish both items at the same time instead of doing one now and the other later.

Frankly, it's not your responsibility unless you're a fiduciary. You should send a certified, signature required letter to the wife explaining what needs to happen. Copy their attorney if you know who it is. Then, if she doesn't respond, you're done.

Agree with this.

I think that's probably safe to do.

But the plan year didn't change. A brand new plan was created that overlapped the other plan. I don't know the answer as to why it was done this way, but I would have preferred to do it differently. BTW, I don't know the 415 limitation answer.

I think the specific question here is: can a participant defer the maximum 402g limit + catch up in 2 separate calendar years, but 1 plan year? If yes, then are the 2 catch up limits BOTH added to the 415 limit to determine the maximum allocation?

Or tell them it seems wrong and ask for their legal or CPA back up. The time to make it right is now, not after it happens.

I'm glad someone else posted this. I kinda wanted to do so, but was questioning myself. Didn't seem right.

As long as the date the plan started that was on the SS-4, I don't see the issue on the timing. If the plan you're creating is actually a 401(k) instead of a cash balance, then I would see a problem with the DB name. For a CB plan, I don't. If it's a big concern, change the name of the trust with the IRS.

I wouldn't worry about that too much. The date for the notice is a safe harbor anyway. If the owner woke up on December 30 and decided to make the plan safe harbor, you could do the amendment and the notice the same day and make a facts & circumstances case that it met the requirements.