Bri

oh absolutely, that'll be easier than setting up the commutation functions from scratch (which is why I pointed to a table of q values, depending on how much "first principles" were going to be utilized.)

you mean, like, here are the q's and you can take it from there? i found this on the SOA site.... https://mort.soa.org/ViewTable.aspx?&TableIdentity=831

Isn't that just the rule for *safe harbor* pay period matches?

Isn't this one of those things, too, where the DOL's rules and IRS's might not perfectly sync in terms of leeway, too?

Could you argue that issuing the ACH directive to the RK, as part of the contribution submission, is an official move to segregate the assets as a determinable payable? Akin to handing them over a check that the RK lost behind a desk for X months..... I do think the DOL side, the participants got their money as of when they should have, seems clean. The IRS side (for the possible PT) seems more of the issue here.

Have the plan deposit the $35 in a checking account in the name of the plan and pay the guy from there, no fee. If the employer messes up 10 times, does the recordkeeper get to milk the guy's account ten times?

I think you let him take the whole thing to his rollover, but warn him up front that some of that amount is going to be deemed an ineligible rollover contribution and will be reflected as such on the separate 1099-Rs. If he wants to avoid the hassle he can wait, but it's his call.

then yes, while the 5500 is asking about the late employee 401k amounts, but your actual corrective measures for the match include earnings on top as well.

Does "er deferrals" mean the corresponding match?

Yes, it sucks not catching and fixing it by December 31 of the same year. The original PT was over two tax years. The new 1-1-25 PT only gets multiplied by the 15% once.

the W-2 is going to show the too-big deferral, but the 1099-R will show the corresponding addition back to the income. (And the code 8 is right, a 2026 distribution taxable in 2026.)

Wouldn't the IRS go after the sponsor for failure to deal with the forfeitures properly when they should have? Gotta think they'd want THAT for the other participants' sakes, like if they are instructed to reallocate.

The identical ownership is 45, and the 45% they are deemed to co-own is identical, the same 45% of the company.

Yeah, it's not 45 MORE percent that they own from each other....

Is this a question of whether or not a defaulted loan for someone at 60% vesting, would then leave all their other funds at exactly 60% vested still?