Bri

The plan has to allow it, but DB plans were recently allowed to drop their ISW age to 59½. 401(a)(36), I think added by the Miners Act.

I think our guys use Datair for them, and the audit-waiver disclosure for the qualifying plan assets looks like a supplemental section that printed at the end of the AFN.

Yeah - everything that gets disclosed on an SAR is also covered on the AFN. The AFN just has way more required stuff on it.

Yeah, basically the AFN is for PBGC plans while SARs are for the rest. Different distribution timing rule, as well.

First thought is, does the IRS have a way to tell the distributions are identical? Like that "account number" field - were those identical? At least that "might" support being able to indicate the forms represent the same basic distribution. (Otherwise, what, correct them both again to show zero, and then re-issue only one correct one?)

They do indeed on both counts - I've had plans where the D-B amounts caused not only a 415 excess, but also have seen a 404 excess the IRS caught on audit.

I do recommend if possible having at least some allusion the sponsor name in there in some way, just so it'll alphabetize where you want it to!

kinda feel like we want to give the TPA the benefit of the doubt that they meant they pass by permissively aggregating, figuring everybody who mattered was in at least one of the plans. Getting the right result but the wrong reason, as anyone who likes pension credential exams may be used to seeing as a multiple choice option....

I kinda look at NIPA designations as "what do THOSE EVEN mean?" compared to ASPPA ones, but I also haven't been consulted to be a TPA owner before.

EZ is indeed the way to go.

Does a plan that excludes 100% of its eligible NHCEs have a "processes and procedures" problem which might cost the ability to even USE EPCRS here?

Out of curiosity, did you show the assets and liabilities netting to zero on the financial summary section of the 5500? (With the amount also listed on the Transfers of Assets section for 2022?)

Peter, I agree that if you're going to essentially overshoot the LTPT rule and be extra generous like that with the deferral eligibility, that you won't have a vesting problem where some might be 500 and some might be 1000. I'd be concerned about other unintended consequences, but haven't thought them out too much.

Right - the person wouldn't HAVE to defer, but would have more "not-earmarked-for-student-loan" take-home pay available to consider a deferral election. But that way the person gets the retirement savings (both EE and ER), the loan payment gets made, and the overhaul to the tax code could have been just a little bit smaller.

Can a plan sponsor get a business tax deduction for making an employee's student loan payment on his/her behalf? (If so, wouldn't it be easier to offer that benefit, and then the employee can contribute the corresponding amount as a salary deferral and just get a normal match?)

Good point about a SIMPLE (with a match) since the owner may not want to have to cover himself under the SEP, as the OP suggests.

The "bad consequence" that pops into my head first is that they might qualify for the "500 hours for vesting" rule, and yes that shouldn't matter if they aren't eligible for employer contributions, but then later become a full time employee who gets employer contributions, and ends up subject to a better vesting schedule than someone who'd been "regular full time" from Day 1.

No, that section of the Rev. Proc. is addressing the failure to deduct the money out of the paycheck, rather than the failure to send the money to the trust.

EBG.com does something like that, with a separate table when using the year's AMT versus GAR94 as the mortality table. Not sure how it reconciled to the funding requirements FOR such a contribution, though.

That's what I figured - it might not be as "absolutely" easy as just passing BRF....

Is there anything separate which would prevent the opposite layout being permitted, since age discrimination "only counts" when it's pro-youth?

Plus, death benefits have mandatory timing rules to the payout, so in some way the plan will have to force out the funds.

I just gazed at Code 4980, didn't see anything describing how the transfer "must" occur other than not passing through the employer's hands first.

I would think that you're subject to the -11g rules, where the increase in benefits must be nondiscriminatory. And another result of the amendment being adopted more than 2.5 months after year end being that you're not going to be able to reflect the benefit increase in the valuation. I just had something like this, where I grumbled, why wasn't the benefit change just made part of the original document signed last month? Because I think then it would have been okay, because a retro-adopted plan is deemed signed on 12/31. Willing to be wrong, though....

Unrelated employers? Basically the annual additions limit rules will come into play.