Bri

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.

I think so - I read it as though the participant has to "leave 1,000 behind remaining in the plan"

(Looks like 2678 is the form to appoint an agent for tax reporting/depositing, including Forms 941 and probably most relevant, the 945 for a plan.)

Good point - sometimes plans will define allocation groups as HCEs and non-HCEs, so changing a definition mid-year has at least the potential to inadvertently but improperly cut back benefits.

Unless you think you can make more $ off them for the VCP application, of course.....🙂

Isn't there something that says the TPG election must be made by across all plans of the employer to be valid? (Either a regulation or even something in the plan's document.) I always took that to mean that if one of a controlled group's plans didn't have the election, it basically invalidated it across all the plans.

If an allocated amount is enough to qualify for the "active participant" box on the W-2 (which affects the taxpayer's IRA deductibility) then why shouldn't it be good enough to count for 404 purposes?

I think this blurb from the 1.401(k)(3) regs has it spelled out as plan year quarters: (ii) Periodic matching contributions. The safe harbor matching contribution requirement of this paragraph (c) will not fail to be satisfied merely because the plan provides that safe harbor matching contributions will be made separately with respect to each payroll period (or with respect to all payroll periods ending with or within each month or quarter of a plan year) taken into account under the plan for the plan year, provided that safe harbor matching contributions with respect to any elective contributions made during a plan year quarter are contributed to the plan by the last day of the immediately following plan year quarter.

My guess is that 1 is bad and 2 is good, since the tax deadline is not 9-15 in the case without an extension.

Did they actually establish the trust, or rather just create an account? (Just wondering, since often trust agreements get paired with the plan document.)

September 15 is only 8 full months (through August) plus a half. 9.5 months from 12/31 is the middle of October.

That doesn't sound right. The 3E code is specifically for a situation where the sponsor has two plans, one for himself and one for his employees but has to test them together. (That way, the employees' Summary Annual Reports don't reveal the owner's riches, like if a small plan has 3 million dollars in it and the staff people are low in quantity and experience, and realize the only way their plan has that much money in it is if it's all the boss's.) You can use an EZ without needing the 3E code, and if this guy hasn't had employees in years, the 3E code wouldn't apply since there's no coverage test issue.

Sounds like it'll depend on how long ago the last non-owner participant still had a benefit in the plan.

Depends on if they've got a minor child inducing a controlled group despite the non-involvement.....that law goes away soon but not for 2022.

Definitely appropriate to do it that way.

I was told once by a client maybe 15 years ago that the K1/W2 combo was appropriate for a business in New York (state). I don't remember the whole deal other than it did add only a few thousand dollars from the K1 to the partners' wage amounts.

This is the law change coming from SECURE 2.0, that you can completely disaggregate for 416 (top heavy) purposes. Soon, the same people you're testing separately for 401(k) purposes will be able to be tested separately for TH purposes. And so since their separate test very very likely will have no Keys, their subgroup will be not top heavy, and so folks in that situation can be skipped for the 3%. (Even if the "statutory" employees are in a top heavy plan for their population.)

Nope, and the PBGC wouldn't have an open file for the plan, either. Regular termination rules still apply, though.