Bri

I'm mildly curious as to who authorized the payment of the plan expense from the forfeiture account, acknowledging it may have already been built into the service contract for the recordkeeper.

Amend the plan before those people enter on 1/1, and those folks can be subject to the new schedule.

Without a QDRO, is there any other sort of distributable event allowing the participant's distribution to be paid from the plan (and now we're talking PAID rather than TRANSFERRED to the alternate payee) ?

Nuclear war is a concern that never use forfeiture account. Huh? 🤪 Seriously though, if your concern is a plan never using its forfeiture account, then I bet it's failing to follow the terms of its written document. The document should say when/how to use them. (Including an emphasis on when.) So yes, there should be concerns - if the plan was supposed to allocate its forfeitures, then numerous participants don't have the full amount in their accounts as they should. Or perhaps the company took a deduction for a contribution which was supposed to be offset by the forfeitures. Anything they didn't do right is something the IRS certainly would scrutinize upon examination.

but zero current HCEs would be covered, so no big deal if a handful of now-they're-NHCEs don't benefit.....

"HCEs and Former HCEs" seems a reasonable classification to define excluded employees.

And maybe the document has a "If the allocation would cause the participant to exceed the annual additions limit, then...." type of paragraph that would indeed eliminate the need to fund the rest of the match. But yeah, if so, you gotta find it in the text.

The thing I don't get in this - a plan isn't allowed to ONLY permit Roth contributions. Was Ameritrade charging you twice as much to have two plans?

And remember, if it's not REQUIRED, the distribution may be rollover-eligible and subject to mandatory 20% withholding rather than a waivable 10%.

...right, the problem is compounded if an ADP refund turns non-catchups into catchups even though they're below 6% of salary. Now the previously matched amounts are ineligible to be matched as a result of the re-characterization.

Does the participation agreement for each sponsor address it? That feels like something where any discretion you might have, may already have been addressed within the tiny print.

As of his rehire date, there is no loan. Let the guy do a QPLO makeup by his tax deadline, perhaps?

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.