Bri

Yes, if the spouse's consent was not given nor witnessed, then the spouse is still the legal beneficiary. But that doesn't prevent the participant from taking funds from the plan. If the spouse is NOT the beneficiary, it's because they allowed it by signing away their right to death benefits. So too bad on them if the participant elects a withdrawal.

Ages up to 70 are at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.401(l)-3 But I don't have anything for older ages.

I thought it was the opposite - you don't have to offer annuities but if you do then the spouse has to agree to any annuity version that's not the QJSA. Yeah, been a while....

I would think there's one value per person for 414(s) compensation as used in the testing, as it sounds that these plans are being aggregated to pass their stuff. And as such, one value to use to determine the minimum gateway. (happy to be wrong) Participants always enter both plans at the same time, right? (With only the comp definition different?)

1099-Rs show zero quite often simply as a result of being a corrected form, so I suspect nothing's preventing them from being generated almost "voluntarily"...

I'd suspect not - so there could be multiple decisions to make - a) can the fees eat the balances under the plan's terms, and b) how much is left to pay after *that* and whether a 1099 would be specifically required based on the actual payment value. (And I think the $10 is an aggregate total, not any one individual payment to the person, right?)

Isn't the 1099-R cutoff $10?

Guess it depends on what the document says...

If the employee had a legitimate termination of employment, took a withdrawal upon that distributable event in the year of age 55 or later, and then was later rehired, I would think the withdrawal still was exempt from the 10% because that's determined at the time of the withdrawal, no?

I suppose there's always the opportunity to elect X% of pay not to exceed $Y. Might not really get you what you want but illustrates some flexibility perhaps.

I would at least double-check to see if the BPD says anything about how deferral elections may or may not apply to "imputed income" rather than a straight wage payment to the employee.

Well heck, if we're getting semantic/pedantic, let's go further and say it's the 5th anniversary of the first day of the plan year in which participation commenced.

Or, if it's not too late, allocate a QNEC to last year's NHCEs?

And of course, I overlooked that it's still the 2024 minimum being paid based off 2023, so I do think they're going to have to recoup some of that IRA rollover to satisfy the RMD. (And adjust the amount coming out of the IRA for earnings since it was an ineligible rollover contribution. Hmmm, thinking out loud has me presuming only the "principal" amount coming from the IRA satisfies the RMD for the plan, like you couldn't count some of the earnings towards the RMD.)

If the termination is 12/15/24, isn't the RBD 4/1/2025 so that the 2023 balance is out of the equation?

I like Lou's idea. but wonder...... Is there any thought that because the payroll-period SH match on the commissions would not have been deposited quarterly as is typically required, that somehow the adjustment now also has to include earnings from what would have been those "end of following quarter" deadlines?

Not the ones who roll over their balances. But the exception is for termination of employment, not termination of the plan. 72(t)(2)(A): (v) made to an employee after separation from service after attainment of age 55,

I can't *imagine* your plan document requires it to be tested for nondiscrimination solely on a benefits basis. Do your rate groups on an allocations basis, and all the rate groups will pass > 70%. And then (except for the random possible exceptions which we as a pension community will remind you of in subsequent comments) you should be good.

It includes plans terminated in the last five years, not currently active ones.

if they hire enough monkeys and buy enough typewriters, sure.....

(and hopefully the plan's document "guarantees gateway" as needed for those with only the SH allocation prescribed)

Nope....controlled group....

Also in play are going to be whether or not the plan document is a standardized type that automatically extends plan coverage to all related group members. Depending on full census demographics, the laundry business might be okay not having to adopt the plan, but that would take far more detailed analysis.

As long as (a) document defines the compensation that way by source, and (b) the compensation definition isn't discriminatory (414(s) testing) Then this should be fine. Maybe a suggestion to make sure the SPD spells that out well enough so people aren't leaving match money on the table for only doing 6% of the base pay, but otherwise folks just need to think it through and maybe sign up for more than 6% so that they still clear 6% of their entire "match compensation" figure.

It does look like you'll have 7 HCEs and 1 NHCE (when she meets eligibility). The NHCE essentially has to end up in everybody's rate group, if you're cross-testing.