Bri

Don't forget that if 5.5% and the AMT provides a lesser lump sum than the plan's AE factors, then that will override your prior number. And the one-year participation limit before age 62 gets reduced down below the 14,779 as well, to something more like 7,243 at age 41.

Agree with Cuse - The deadlines are about the sponsor's tax deadline, so if the partnership itself is the sponsor, it'd make sense to tie it to that.

Different answer if HCEs are instead put in a class allocated a contribution credit of $0, rather than excluded by class?

This sounds like you're hoping to apply the flexibility allowed for top paid group determinations, but I don't believe that's provided for in the coverage rules. The only leeway I've seen on that one is when you fall back on the plan's entry dates under liberalized eligibility, as opposed to the straight reading of the rule (where you go six months out from the one year anniversary, even if the plan had dual eligibility and someone snuck in July 1 even if it that were earlier than statutorily required).

Oh, as a sole prop, then this could potentially be the company's final contribution in the year of termination. Subject to 404 and 415, of course. I was interpreting the OP as some rando wanted to apply personal funds towards his deferral ceiling before his distribution.

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?)