jpod

Why must there be 2 plans? I think it's a terrific idea, but it assumes that the seller's owner is willing to work for the salary (plus ps contribution of $53,000) which you describe.

Sorry, I did not read the OP carefully. I was thinking that spouse survived the participant.

Why isn't surviving spouse's estate the beneficiary (stepping into the shoes of the surviving spouse)? Does plan document or beneficiary say that surviving spouse's entitlement ends at her death and secondary beneficiary becomes the beneficiary?

Check to make sure that the participating employer adoption page is necessary where it is a restatement of an existing plan, especially if it is a restatement of the same sponsor's prototype or vs.

There is no opportunity for abuse. Here's where I am coming from: The payment is at a specified date (which happens to be the 5-year anniversary of the NQDCP), and not dependent upon a SFS, with one exception, that being an involuntary SFS. Therefore, I think, you don't need either of the exceptions because there is only one form of payment on account of a SFS.

You can't be serious, can you? Here we are talking about providing free ACA-compliant individual coverage, and, presumably, offering ACA-compliant coverage for dependents.

What law requires that they be allowed to waive coverage and still keep their jobs?

I am saying that I THINK the regs will provide a short term deferral exception, to put it in line with FICA rules and 409A, and even without regs I haven't heard anything to suggest that the IRS examiners don't assume such an exception doesn't exist already.

We don't have regs yet but I think it is safe to assume that there is no deferral of compensation subject to 457(f), assuming the deferral is not done at the election of the participant or death beneficiary, as the case may be.

The original question assumed that the employer would force employees to have health insurance, either buying it through the employer or elsewhere. So, all of the explanations as to why people don't want health insurance are irrelevant. My question still stands: Why not give it to them for free and if the employer doesn't want to pay for it reduce their salaries or wages simultaneously? That can't possibly be illegal, except perhaps for some requirement to give some advance notice in some jurisdictions.

Why can't you cover them and lower their wages/salaries (subject to minimum wage requirements)?

This is completely off the cuff but it sounds like there are no "plan assets" within the meaning of ERISA and, therefore, participants' have no rights to any portion of the surplus or refund. As to the tax effects to the employer, I am not really sure although I would think that the employer can take a deduction only when the "all events" test is satisfied; therefore, can only deduct the net spend for the year, but by the same token the recovery of surplus is not a taxable event.

So, if I am the employer, it's "heads I win, tails you lose"?

Please tell us what this means: Employer group purchases a level-funded, self-insured plan.

NQDCP provides for a payment on a single, specified date, whether or not a separation from service has occurred, but the amount payable at that single, specified date is less if termination of employment occurs prior to that date. However, there is one exception: If an involuntary separation from service occurs prior to the single, specified date, the accrued amount is paid in a single lump sum upon separation from service. Does this exception violate the general rule in 1.409A-3© that there be a single payment methodology for all payments triggered by a separation from service? I think not, because the only payment triggered by a separation from service is a separation from service described in my exception. Any different views?

I guess I wasn't thinking about the 404 deduction limit, which with only $170,000 sort of knocks my idea out of the box.

If they are unrelated, he likely is better off putting $53,000 into his self-employed PS plan as a PS contribution, and then putting his $24,000 elective into his new employer's plan.

From the facts given it sounds like something which can be ignored with zero consequences, but I agree a lawyer should review.

You can: a db plan that covers only partners in a partnership. (There may be other scenarios but that's the one that comes to mind.)

Your inquiry presupposes that it is a taxable trust, rather than a grantor trust. Are you sure about that?

How is it irrelevant? If it's a "significant detriment" you have a qualification problem. And, arguably, the participant's consent and therefore any spousal consent to something other than a J&S are invalid.

Does it make a difference what the reasons are? While I didn't hesitate to question my client on the reasons, I wasn't asked for an opinion on the reasons, just the legality.

I am seriously not kidding (somehow mutual funds do something very similar), but if the consensus is that it is impossible or near impossible you don't have to bother giving me the reasons. They are probably staring me in the face but I can't see them, and while you can fit what I know about computer technology in a thimble it seems to me that this is something which shouldn't be a great technological challenge.

I don't understand why the allocations can't be done daily automatically, and not manually, shortly after 4pm EST.

This is a serious question because in my line of work I don't get down that deep into the record-keeping trenches, plus I am not sure we have any clients with DC plans that are not self-directed. Can a pooled plan be daily valued, given the technology available in this day and age (assuming no "hard to value" investments), with distributions processed at any old time during the year? Seems to me that is the most ideal scenario for participants generally.