Bill Presson

Mike was saying the opposite of that.

I agree. I haven't found anything that eliminates 1.401(k)-3(e) which requires at least 3 months for a newly established plan (except for a brand new employer).

Bringing this back up. During the end of an ASPPA video hangout yesterday, this subject came up. There was quite a bit of disagreement. I felt (after the discussion above) that the 3 month requirement was still in place. Others (including @Larry Starr) were pretty firmly in the camp that the SECURE Act changed the law and that was no longer required. Would love to see some more discussion because I think this is very important.

You say he will "still be eligible" but you need to define eligible for what? No he doesn't get kicked out of the plan, but there are rules delineating who gets a year of vesting, who is eligible for a top heavy minimum benefit and who accrues an additional benefit for the year. This employee may be eligible for one or more or none of those items.

An advisor (or broker) has to have their clients assets held by someone. Some advisors use Schwab. Others may use a number of other B/D groups. LPL is one of the largest. An entity that actually executes the trades that an advisor or broker would request.

I think it depends on what "affiliated with" means. Is it a broker dealer like LPL? Is it just a friend and they provide help from time to time?

If they made the election, then the issue is the deposit and it should be corrected immediately. I don't see this as being different than a w-2 employee making an election and it not being deposited.

Jak, if you use "seasoned monies" for insurance premiums that exceed the incidental limits, those amounts are treated as a taxable distribution. That's why you get to exceed the incidental limits. I don't recommend it. Also, just an FYI even though you didn't ask, rollover monies are not considered in the calculation for the incidental limit since they weren't contributions to that plan.

Agreed. It's all about the timing on this.

Loan limits are separate from distribution limits. Since a loan can't be made from a SEP, take the distribution from there and the loan from the DB.

The participant terminated in 1989, not the plan.

If it's a corporation, you use 1563(e)(4) instead.

https://www.napa-net.org/secure-act-tax-credit-qas Technically it was NAPA. But no membership required.

This was part of an ASPPA Q&A on the credit. Q25: Does the start-up credit apply to a SEP? A25: Yes, it applies to a SEP. The credit is not limited to qualified plans. IRC Section 45E refers to IRC Section 4972(d) for the definition of a plan. That section includes qualified plans, 403(b) plans, SEPs and SIMPLE IRAs or 401(k)s. While it doesn't specifically address your question, I think it answers it.

As you've described it, the S Corps seem to have been done correctly. But if the LLC is taxed as a partnership, the partners should not have received w-2 compensation. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/partnerships From the IRS: "Partners are not employees and shouldn't be issued a Form W-2." So, the CPA did it wrong. With that said, you will need to count both amounts from the LLC. Depending on the K-1 amount, the calculation might get tricky.

They should be getting K-1s from the S Corps as well. Those aren't earned income and can't be used for pension purposes. If the LLC is taxed as a partnership, then the K-1 is (generally) treated as earned income, assuming they had an active role in the business. If the LLC is taxed as an S Corp, then the answer is the same as for the other S Corps. Maybe they chose not to pay themselves a salary and get a w-2 in the LLC. You'll need to ask more questions.

You're welcome!

1. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/terminating-a-simple-ira-plan 2. No issue with signing in December 2020

So the CPA wants to actually have the money not taxed ever? Sweet deal if you can get it.

I stand corrected. This I did not know. I would be interested to see the math in a real life situation.

I don't believe any of the match is included in the ACP since it qualifies as safe harbor. This is why the after-tax contributions will fail unless it's an owner only plan or a very large plan where a lot of typical HCEs are excluded because of a top paid group election.

If the employer isn't currently a sponsor of a plan, then they can't withhold any deferrals. There isn't a plan that allows it.

As Bird said, it's ok. But I think it's silly. Are there really some 13 year old kids they need to exclude? Just eliminate the age requirement. Usually the 18 & 21 ages are there to exclude high school and college summer help or interns. Not sure an age 14 eligibility requirement accomplishes anything.

If you feel you've been harmed, you need to contact an attorney and seek legal action. I don't think we can help you here.

They're definitely coming but not till 1/1/21. We'll have the capability and are getting things prepared now, but not advertising anything. The only advertising I've seen at this point is Terry Power's group.