Bri

It depends on if the plan allows after-tax contributions outside of payroll deduction, and that the termination date hasn't already passed.

Oh I don't argue it hasn't still been a net positive....just thinking of how we could further avoid these issues where as soon as the Required List comes out, a sweeping piece of legislation gets passed which won't end up in a basic plan document for another nine years! Alas, that might require some foreknowledge of when the next big one is coming.

Do we have any knowledge of whether the IRS would even consider abandoning the Cycles/Required Lists and going back, instead, to specific legislation-based restatement periods? (Restating for SECURE 2.0 is the new Restating for TRA '86.)

Can a distributed loan (offset of benefit, if his termination of employment triggers immediate distributability and the loan being due) be "rolled back in" indirectly within 60 days? Thus making the loan "live" again? (I know this doesn't seem typical, but what finer point do I miss when suggesting this?)

I agree, sounds only like persnickety software rather than a plan design issue. Any leeway on just giving the Keys the match and calling it a day?

No (restriction on other plans at the same time as the SIMPLE). But why not roll the SIMPLE funds to "anywhere" else besides that IRA if he wants better choices?

If you already filed, the IRS "should" figure it out and would send the same basic letter again. I had a client with the same issue - we had just finished processing his 2022 returns for signature when he got the notification that they'd assigned his new EIN, since his 2021 returns had his SSN listed as the EIN improperly. For this guy, we prepped amended returns for 2022 to show the new EIN on line 4. (Figuring, that won't cause the same IRS letter to pop up a year from now. I don't know if them getting 2 straight years with the wrong EIN would escalate their correspondence to "cut it out, stop filing with the wrong one.")

The second of those - all the owners AND all the top 8. (Or 7, you can round either way on the 20% calculation as long as you're consistent in the way you do it.)

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.