Bri

I think a spinoff would have to preserve the DB or DC nature of the original.

Sounds as though they don't want new deductions for the large salaries? Why not keep the DC as is and actually fund a new DB plan, perhaps...

Of course I was kidding, but if they're teenagers cleaning the office bathrooms on the weekends, it's not expensive to provide a 0.5% accrual to a kid making $2,000 over the summer. Then exclude them from everything else. I wonder what the underlying "scheme" was that made the IRS determine this somehow needed to be codified to prevent abuse. I had to VCP married doctors in separate disciplines, because they had their own SIMPLEs but small children.

Put those minor children to work on the payroll! It's their fault!

It's not impossible to find pre-approved documents for other plan sponsors online. Cash balance plans were recently permitted to be on pre-approved documents, so maybe a search comes up with something at least illustrating the "behind the scenes" language in such a document illustrating how the plan addresses preserving prior benefit levels. Even if it's not exactly what your company will want, it might spell out what that other plan did in such a way your attorneys could construct their product for you.

Just something else to throw out there - did that employer formally adopt the plan, or were they just "swept in" by a standardized prototype? My thought would be to look at the supplemental participation agreement, as well as any plan language governing separate employers (whether related or not).

Lastly - are the hours recorded for payroll purposes, such as with a corporation? You mention partners - if this is a partnership then hours may not be so readily accounted for? A partner might not be onsite but might be still leading/pondering the future of his company from his hospital bed.

Does it count as earned income as opposed to passive income?

Can the Plan Administrator and Trustee adjust the custodian's records to account for payables/receivables among money sources?

I usually see override language to the allocation conditions specifically for those amounts.

I don't mind singular they, but if one is to choose that pronoun, they is going to have to use singular verb forms! Bri am using another such concept here - it's not that I'm referring to myself in the third person, I'm just not using a pronoun for my proper name.

BG5150 - I was referencing the line that the participant is also a plan trustee. We all seem to be doubting that each employee gets to be a trustee like that. If the participant is a capital-T Trustee for realsies and refuses to accept the contribution/set up the account, that's certainly problematic, no? (And might there be other Trustees upon whom the responsibility might fall to set up the account as directed by the employer? I asked about vesting because if she was going to leave while nonvested, they could set up a dummy account to hold the soon-to-be-forfeiture.)

Wow - she actually signed the plan's Trust agreement and wants to avoid her Trustee responsibility? And is she going to be vested in this contribution? (I'm going to defer to the actual lawyers on here but figured we should get all *those* specifics ahead of time.)

That's because there's no corresponding "form" showing the 40,000 rollover contribution INTO the plan. I think your plan of action sounds sounds right. (Imagine someone job-hopping and taking the same rollover account from plan to plan to, say, four companies within the same year. His 1099s will certainly be way higher than his actual balance.)

I think you're on it, except you wouldn't count the D-B money being applied towards the matching formula in the profit sharing rate group tests. (Just the average benefits percentage test) I don't recall when the employer has to declare how much counts as which type between non-elective and match, though. Could depend on the allocation date as defined in the document.

Just wondering, is it reasonable to charge anyone for an electronic copy of the document, assuming the recipient is okay with that in lieu of paper? Even if it's the two minutes to find it on a corporate server and type out the email address, "here you go", and click Send.

Now you can find all 76 returns using code 4P. Fewer than 10 plans a year, one of which definitely seems wrong by its title. Of course, since advisors like to mine these searches for prospects, I'll just say that'd be a *very* targeted marketing campaign.

actually, my bad, it's explicit in the title of the post, now that I look back up the screen.....

Good point - whatever amount he might elect as the ER portion just reduces the net income he could defer from.

Does it matter if it's not a terminating plan?

Well, it depends on the nature of the 25k. (Schedule C number before SE taxes, versus a number on a W-2 paid by a corporation) Because it's not impossible for the catch-ups and the employer contribution to push his total over the 100% of pay annual additions limit.

(Send the IRS just one of the five dogs at the poker table.)

Sounds right. (And I think you're okay on the second point - the plan would still only cover the owner and spouse.)

The American Miners Act dropped the permitted in-service age for pension plans to 59½, but yes, it has to say that in your document.

I believe that's a yes.