Bri

CBZ nails it. Plus hey, if an employer "matches" an employee's loan payment, that's just called, making extra loan payments.....on occasion even also described as "being a nice boss!"

Does everyone "really" treat SDBAs as true daily val where required, or are TPAs just pro-rating a year's worth of gains among the sources based on some prior balance? I've seen way too many plans run allocate earnings like mini "pooled accounting" setups for each employee, where the receivable is just the beginning balance for the next year with earnings not truly determined at each transaction's source's level.... I mean, I've seen it done properly, but I've also had to suggest the plan documents not indicate daily valuation, because it's 10x the work to do it properly "from scratch".

As long as Company A employees are made ineligible, to prevent any new benefits from arising for them, their assets should be allowed to linger behind (as a bunch of ex-employees from the ongoing plan sponsors, right?) until the spinoff is executed.

Is a real estate company a service organization for these purposes?

Sounds right to me...Even 20 wouldn't work because 5.00 is not greater than 5

Depending on how many HCEs are members of the union, maybe this becomes something to negotiate for....

I would guess that unless the amendment specifies it, you start with your BOY balance 1/1/24 and start that at 6% along with new contributions, but you don't then retroactively increase the priors. Whether the prior benefits stay with a 5% ICR is going to be indicated in the amendment.

404(c) means they have to be able to transfer investments at least quarterly, but the deferral rate isn't tied to that.

Sounds like what you only need is signed deferral elections for the owners indicating $0.

I agree with Lou - I hadn't noticed we were outside the SCP window.

They might want to get a separate EIN for their distribution processing group.

yeah, the plan is compliant and the recordkeeper makes the bucks.

Devil's advocate - What if the error had been a million dollars? (Wrong omnibus account number on the transmittal to the custodian or something)

That feels like chopping off your nose to spite your face - have him put it back in a Roth IRA? (Put the plan back in the position it would have been if the error hadn't happened.)

The problem is that if he asked for a full distribution, that should include the loan as of that date, not when it would have gone into default, like if he'd only asked for a partial withdrawal of his vested benefit.

Won't the annual additions deadline still matter?

Plus, DB plans aren't individual account plans even though in a one-man shop, it might feel obviously "allocable" to just the owner.

You can exclude a term with under 501 hours if - they don't benefit, and - the reason they don't benefit is specifically because the plan explicitly doesn't allocate benefits to people T<501 (in other words, not because of a class/division exclusion, and not because their allocation group would get zero anyway) If your plan has no allocation conditions (and note you used a double-negative so I'm not sure which way you meant) then the folks would have only not benefited at the employer's discretion.

And anyway, if there really was a withdrawal due from the ACP test, and the HCE's already been paid, then the Plan Administrator needs to adjust the Forms 1099-R to indicate one amount paid as a corrective distribution, separate from the rest. And the usual "gotta get it out of the IRA if that's where it's already gone" caveats.

No double attribution

I think that's in the language of your particular plan, rather than a blanket rule.

I would think you make the SEP correct by increasing the HCE. Does the HCE have to get EXACTLY 40,000 or can it be inferred to provide her AT LEAST 40,000 ?

And if you have a way to access things like past ASPPA conference session slides on 415 limits, they tend to contain practical examples where you can actually see the text in action with actual numbers.

Another potential primary reason to include the staff in the plan is whether or not you want it subject to the PBGC (depending on industry) to get higher deductions for the combo.

It's not unreasonable that it may happen, but your actuary will still need to verify that the 70K wouldn't exceed the individual's 415(b) limit, which of course then brings in your high-3 (presumably prior years from the past) average and age into the calculations.