Bri

I wouldn't think a 5330 is in order, either. Would the argument for one be that the plan sponsor improperly lent that erroneous deferral amount as assets TO the plan?

The plan's operational error is letting him keep the extra. Or failing to amend to allow him to keep the extra. The ACP test should use the amount the plan says he's supposed to get.

That's Schedule I to Section D of the 5330.

I just downloaded the 2021 filings of a takeover client, and their audit reports weren't there (filed 10-17). But in past years, I used to see a last page created in the downloaded PDF from the EFAST site, specifically indicating there were attachments under review before being released for public disclosure. Didn't see those on the fresh downloads this year. (And I am pretty sure that if I do come back and re-download in a few weeks, the reviewed audit reports would be part of the PDF.)

Why does it "feel" like the UVB percentage is getting indexed?? (Someday it'll exceed 100% since it's already up to 5.2%)

I would guess that the plan switches its measurement period to the calendar year for 2023, since he won't have 1000 hours in his first 12 months. And that his prior service is not disregarded (it's less than 5 years), so that the rehire date doesn't factor in it. So he could get to 1000 hours from June 1, 2023, to December 31, 2023, and get in on 1/1/2024. All this is moot if the plan doesn't specify a plan-year switch for the second eligibility period, in which case it's every March 1 to Feb. 29 to try to get the year of service.

That should be the case, presuming nothing behind the scenes to interfere with the usual exceptions.

Agree with ESOP Guy - document's eligibility section probably says what occurs with this fact pattern (my suspicion is that the initial eligibility determination period is still ongoing, as measured from the original hire date in March)

Sure, but he'll want an EIN for the venture rather than using the SSN. As for why, you get the extra 20,500 in deferrals on top of the same employer 25% limitation a SEP would have.

There was no box - I filled that in as text in the usual spot on the form where you'd list the first PT. I've always had clients mail in the 5330 after they sign it and write their check - if you're filing a 5330 online I haven't seen those procedures.

I've done it as two pages of a spreadsheet, just label the cells to look like the pages of the actual 5330. Then fill in the actual 5330 with "see additional pages". That way, if all 52 weeks were late.....one page for the transactions and one page for the corrections.

I'd say no change.

I suppose they'd need to check off all the usual "not a controlled group" boxes - 1 - the usual noninvolvement rule between the businesses 2 - no minor children 3 - not a community property state Obviously the first one there is one they can control most easily if there's a specific desired outcome to the CG determination.

Another option is to design a Crystal report to match the records you're trying to export, in such a way that when you then export the generated report to Excel, it's in exactly what Ascensus needs for a layout.

hey, whatever happened to conduit IRAs?

The problem with a SIMPLE is that it has to be the sole plan for the year by the employer, and since "employer" refers to the controlled group, they've already got one.

Agree there, Nate - I think I got this topic confused with the one about switching to an EZ.

Might this come down to whether or not the formerly-eligible person continues to maintain a balance from before the transfer to per diem?

I don't believe the "last day" part affects eligibility so much as allocating contributions, but if they never even became plan participants, then you're okay. (As opposed to, they did become eligible but didn't get a contribution because of that last day rule in the plan.)

There's no true-up required. I have seen documents that give the sponsor the option to true up (nondiscirminatorily) but since the allocation period is specifically each payroll, no true-up would come into play normally.

Sorry about your Mets after this weekend.... Truing up the match depends on: a) What does the plan document say about the calculation of the match? If THAT says it's a payroll by payroll calculation, then there's no truing up. If the plan says it's an annual calculation, but it just happens that the client funds it ongoing week to week, then a true-up will be necessary. b) Is the person opting to contribute partway through the year someone who was already eligible all year long, or is the midyear point their actual plan entry date? This only matters if the answer to (a) is that you have to true up, and then if so, you'd go back to the later of 1/1 or their actual plan entry date. c) Whether the plan defines compensation as the full year's worth, or just from after the participant's entry date. As for the compensation, it's not unheard of to adjust like that, but you obviously have to run a 414(s) compensation inclusion ratio test. Who, besides sales staff, would have commissions, though? You have to sell something to get a commission

Ignore the pay beyond the 401(a)(17) limit in every single year. His formula will be based on 290. But his 415 limit will be based on an average of 280+285+290, so depending on if this is a max accrual formula there could be an override in play. Does your plan document's definition of Compensation or Average Compensation have language referencing 401(a)(17)?

They're talking about Title I of ERISA, meaning it covers actual legal employees rather than only a sole proprietor or partners. This basically means it's under the umbrella of the IRS only, and the IRS's penalty relief program is the "comparable" to the DOL's program for late 5500-SF and 5500 filings (plans covered under Title I, with employee participants). A Title I (or, as you might, "ERISA") plan with missed 5500s has a DOL-run program for missed filings. This IRS version is specifically for the solos, since they're outside the DOL's jurisdiction in this case.

Tom, that's true. It's just that there aren't any 2021 supplemental schedules for the 401(k) plan's return to include with the first 2022 plan year's filing.

I was thinking out loud, if she were in an ineligible class, the plan still wouldn't have a 410(b) issue without any contributions being allocated. And then there would legitimately be only one owner-only participant covered under the plan. I might want to do extra reading on the idea of the plan preserving benefits for a select group of HCEs simply because I can't remember off the top of my head whether that description arises in a situation similar/identical to this.