ETA Consulting LLC

You have two distinct standards to account for: 1) Ensure the contributions to the plan are provided under a definitely determinable allocation formula; and 2) Ensure the contributions to the plan do not discriminate in favor of HCEs. With that said, it seems pretty simple to add a co-sponsor to a volume submitter and have the level of contributions to each participating employer determined separately; satisfying the first standard. Once you do that, show that it meets 401(a)(4) to satisfy the second standard. When you frame is like this, there may be a thousand reasons it would work and a thousand reasons why it wouldn't. But analyzing it along these lines should get you where to need to be. Good Luck!

I'm not being sarcastic, but you're asking whether there are any ideas on how to manage your client. Good Luck!

No. You wouldn't lose anything, but should obtain the plan's QDRO procedures and a statement of entitlement. Good Luck!

None necessary. Even Lebron James misses a shot once in a while. You're still a legend in the field

I still don't see it. Let's simplify the hypothetical: A taxpayer is an HCE in two unrelated companies. He defers exactly $12K in each plan. After each plan completes their respective ADP test, this HCE's $6,000 in excess employee contributions (in each plan) are reclassified as catchup. I think: For each plan, the HCE remains within that plan's limit. Overall, the participant remains at the individual 402(g) limit for a single taxpayer. You're saying that because catchup is limited to $6,000, his legal catchup limit is $6,000; and completely ignores that fact that he has a 402(g) limit of $24,000 that isn't exceeded. I don't agree with that. I don't believe a plan of one employer can dictate to another plan what is a catchup. When it comes to the statutory limit ($18,000 plus $6,000), this is the only time the plans (of two totally unrelated employers) should be combined for this determination. Good Luck!

You can put away 25% of whatever you pay yourself on your W-2. Your best plan may be a SEP. The $18,000 in an individual taxpayer limit as well as a deferral limit for a single plan. Good Luck!

That would be totally unnecessary. The taxpayer has an individual limit of $24,000 for the year. As long as that is not exceeded, the onus is not on the individual to account for the specifics of the plan for any employer. Good Luck!

$6500. No. Good Luck!

Not really, because you're only proving that the plan does not discriminate in favor of HCEs (e.g.against NHCEs). So, ideally, when testing a plan, you're continuing to use allowable methods until that proof is produced. Good Luck!

Deferrals and Safe Harbor would be calculated from 6/1. If any discretionary profit sharing is given, then that would likely be calculated from 1/1. Good Luck!

No. You could do it effective January 1, 2019. Seems as if you're approach is a few months late. Good Luck!

Is the individual a director? Is the individual an employee? Does the individual participate in in the management of the corporation? If all three of these are "NO", then you're not attributed the ownership. If any one of the three are "Yes", then you're attributed ownership. Good Luck!

Correct. The document providers are usually very responsive to legislative changes. When it comes to hardships, the plan isn't even required to allow them. So, until the plan is amended, I'd continue to follow the current written terms. Good Luck!

Yeah, what he said I was going to suggest writing a list of names: Michael Jordan, Peyton Manning, Muhammad Ali, Kobe Bryant, Barry Bonds and mentioning that all of these retired prior to Age 62. I would imagine the IRS's response would be that their endorsement deals didn't necessarily stop at that age. I think Mike's approach is better. Good Luck!

It may have changed drastically since I took it back in 2006, but the premise would not change. They want you to be able to speak competently on a broad range of subject matter; demonstrating the right approach as opposed to selecting the right answer. When I took it, many of the questions were ambiguous. I left feeling miserable, but found out I aced it. I know this doesn't exactly answer your question, but I would recommend demonstrating a sound approach to the issues presented on the exam. The 'select the right answer' methods was already used on the QKA, QPA, & TGPC. Others here may have taken it since I have. Good Luck!

Code E should work. I'd even have it taxable in 2018 since this is the year of distribution. Good Luck!

The child is 100% owner of both businesses if they both own businesses. Good Luck!

What you're proposing will not work. The portion of the plan not covered by the Safe Harbor must pass the ADP test. I'll refer you to IRS Notice 2000-3, Q&A-10. Good Luck!

They can put those two NHCEs in a separate plan altogether. It would be a lot of work for the sole purpose of excluding two NHCEs from safe harbor while allowing them to defer. You'd still have to account for a host of other overlapping compliance issues. Good Luck!

When I read this, I can see how this is actually consistent with what has become American Culture. They suck at what they do. So, they now want to charge you an arm and a leg for doing it, because they cannot manage their resources effectively enough to do it. I submitted a VCP package for a nonamender a year ago and still haven't gotten it back. I have submitted another one since then and it came back signed and approved in less than 3 months. It was the exact same details (with the only difference being the clients). Please forgive me for my rant, but this smells of BS.

This would be a distinction that the client would need to make. Prevailing wage income is part of W-2. So, if they give you W-2, it should include those prevailing wage earnings. The Prevailing Wage income that is on the report should merely be a distinction of part of the W-2 that was already provided, but you'd need to verify that with the client. Good Luck!

You're right. You should only amend the plan to allow the employee into deferrals only. You must ensure you draft the provision correctly to reflect the early entry for deferrals. I'm assuming this is done under a self correction process outlined in EPCRS. Good Luck!

A "HARDSHIP" is only a means of receiving a distribution from the plan when one would not otherwise be available. ALL distributions are going to be taxable to you. Hardship doesn't impact the taxes; it only makes the distribution permissible when it otherwise would not have been. In your case, you didn't need a hardship because you were already eligible for a distribution; you had a severance of employment. Good Luck!

Correct. Each employer is responsible for it's own. I 'think' that if the amount is small enough, you can add it to the earnings allocation in lieu of submitting the form to the IRS. Haven't done one in a while, but you may verify that. Good Luck!