Jump to content


Senior Contributor
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Belgarath

  1. Plans get terminated all the time, for a variety of reasons, and it isn't necessarily an indication of financial difficulty. Sure, it COULD be, but very well may not be. If the plan is subject to PBGC, the participants should generally be ok anyway, up to the PBGC maximum. (Caveat - I'm not a DB person, so the actuarial wizards here may give you a different take on this. I stand in awe of folks who don't have to count on their fingers.)
  2. What C.B. said. The document should address this question. I will say that in my experience, once you miss the initial 2-month eligibility, most of the time you would be looking at a Year of Service (usually, but not always 1,000 hours in the "eligibility computation period" of January 23, 2023 to January 22, 2024), and the entry date would be February 1, 2024.
  3. Actually, I think you want line 31 for a sole prop as your starting point. You might find this publication useful. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p560
  4. Could you be a little more specific about what actually happened? Was there an employee deferral that was inadvertently deposited to the wrong "bucket" and treated as an employer contribution? Etc.? Without knowing any facts, I doubt VCP would be required.
  5. It depends. If the express rule provides for the necessary flexibility, and the provisions that we want, then I'd vote for an express rule. The problem is, the express rule may not be what we want, or provide sufficient flexibility in all situations, in which case we might be better off leaving it to "good" judgment. The IRS has historically, in my experience, been very reasonable about waiving RMD penalties. Perhaps with the reduced 10% penalty, they may be less inclined to waive penalties - only time will tell. Now there's a useless noncommittal response for you...
  6. Assuming the SH notice is a "maybe not" notice, then such an amendment has the effect of reducing the safe harbor 3% (in this case) contribution. This is permissible under the requirements outlined in 1.401(k)-3(g)(ii), and will take the plan out of safe harbor status for 2024, requiring ADP test for whole year, etc., etc. - all requirements as outlined in the regulation. Anyone disagree with this outcome?
  7. Thanks. It might. I'm first looking to see if there is a simple "clean" fix - likely to depend upon what the custodian will or won't do, and how they will do it. That's being investigated currently. Follow the bouncing ball...
  8. Interesting that you should ask. As I find out more details, it appears that the plan's administrator DID know, but things got delayed and many signals crossed due to the paperwork received from the legal guardian and the scope of the guardianship, etc., etc., etc... - which STILL apparently hasn't been settled. The ball has apparently been dropped by various parties at various times, probably because the amount of money is so small - or perhaps for other reasons. So the forceout was processed in error.
  9. Some details are sketchy, but as far as I'm able to determine at this point... A participant terminated employment in early 2021. Left funds in the plan. Less than $5,000. There should have been a mandatory forceout in 2022 when the 2021 valuation was done, but for reasons unknown, it wasn't. When the 2022 valuation was done, (in 2023) this was caught, and a mandatory IRS rollover was processed in the fall of 2023. Unknown to everyone, (apparently) the participant had died in the summer of 2022! Just to make it more interesting, no named beneficiary, and minor children involved, but that's a separate issue. I'm really not sure what the ramifications are here, and it is a small amount of money, so I'm sure the Plan Administrator is willing to take a little "risk" if necessary, to clean this up without excessive time and effort. If the vendor is willing to reestablish this as a plan account, (they are being questioned now) then it should be simple, other than correcting the 1099 (which may or may not have been issued yet - I don't know) - the death distribution will simply be processed according to plan provisions. Any thoughts on this? I've never encountered this situation... Thanks.
  10. Honestly, I haven't bothered to figure it out yet. I fully plan to be retired by then, so selfishly, it'll be someone else's problem. I did see something about this somewhere, but I just skipped over it, so I don't know what it said...
  11. It depends. Are you talking about IRC 318 attribution, or IRC 1563 attribution? What is the situation, specifically, and for what purpose(s) are you attempting to determine the attribution? And for 1563, the ages may matter in some situations.
  12. I don't believe a 204(h) notice is required for a profit sharing plan, EVEN if the PS plan has a fixed formula. Check ERISA 204(8)(B), Treasury regulation 54.4980F-1, and IRC 4980F(f)(2). But maybe I'm missing something. Certainly won't hurt anything if you give one - I just don't think it is necessary.
  13. Depends upon the specific provisions of your document. The 5% test is based on 415 compensation, but your document CAN limit that 415 compensation to the period of eligibility. So you may be able to exclude 415 compensation prior to the date of participation, or you may need to use full year compensation. You'll need to check the specific document provisions.
  14. Has anyone talked to Relius about when the 2024 specimen plan termination amendment is going to be available? I've just spent a very frustrating 1/2 hour trying to navigate their "ticket" system and telephone support when I couldn't get the ticket system to work. And the telephone option didn't work either... I miss the old days.
  15. Congratulations! And we'd like to extend this Laurel, and Hardy handshake (sorry, my so-called sense of humor again). I have appreciated your commentary over the years. As with all such announcements, I'm very jealous, but nevertheless I very sincerely wish you a very long, healthy, and happy retirement! Take care.
  16. This always cracks me up. Along with the "Paperwork Reduction Act" analyses by the DOL.😁
  17. Rock. You. Hard place. I have no perfect solution. Electronic distribution carries its own hassles - personally, I'd prefer to stick with extra pages (using recycled paper, of course).
  18. As a slight modification of David Rigby's suggestion, just cut and paste BOTH entire IRS versions into one document - the non-Roth and the Roth. Then just have a line saying if you have only pre-tax, ignore Section "B" (the Roth) or vice versa. This approach makes for more pages if you only have 1 or the other, but you also have one generic notice, which I think would solve your problem?
  19. A valid point. As a TPA, however, I find it hard to care. Owner-only plans aren't much of a money-maker - we do a very few as a favor for a good broker referral source for example. Since they don't have to make any contributions for such employees, then if they are maxing out the contribution for themselves, an extra (x) amount for "full" admin fees seems like a pretty reasonable price to pay. Depends upon fee structure, I suppose.
  20. Looks like I was worrying over nothing (or just plain wrong...) Restatement period for Cycle 4 is likely to be from early 2027 to early 2029. Hurray!
  21. No employer contribution required if they are eligible to defer SOLELY as an LTPT. No safe harbor required, no match required.
  22. I don't think it is that simple. The proposed regs say that the class exclusion can't be a "proxy for imposing an age or service requirement." I suspect it might be generally playing with fire to use this exclusion, if the purpose is to exclude LTPT employees. Other than the PIA for determining who is or isn't an LTPT, and having the hassle of offering them the deferral opportunity, it isn't otherwise a big deal as far as I'm concerned. No employer contributions required, exclude them for testing, top heavy, whatever. I'm oversimplifying, of course, and the PIA/hassle is potentially very substantial!
  23. Not wages, and not reported on W-2. Reported an a 1099-R, Boxes 1 and 2a, code "G" in Box 7. Now, employee might want to increase normal wage withholding to take all this into account, but that's a separate issue. Take a look at IRS Notice 2024-2, Q & A's L-1 through L-11 for a discussion of the issue.
  24. Funny thing - when I was in high school, I took typing (all right, mostly because the teacher was radiantly attractive) but we had what was, for those days, pretty advanced electric typewriters. I got reasonably good at touch typing. Then when I went to college, all I could afford was this little Underwood manual typewriter, which was about the size of a lunchbox. You couldn't really touch type because you had to hammer the keys, and if you went more than about 20 words per minute, the strikers stuck together, and correcting errors back then wasn't fun. So over the course of 4 years, I lost the ability to type without looking at the keyboard, and have never regained it to this day. It is a source of amusement to my co-workers that I type while holding a pen, in writing position, between the fingers on my right hand. I've thought about doing a video of "Remedial Typing For The Slow Of Wit Dinosaur" but I don't think it would catch on. Boy, did this get off track. My apologies to the original poster.
  • Create New...