Belgarath

Yeah, our document defines it (65/5) more liberally (in the participant's favor) than that - it specifies that the 5th anniversary discussed above is the 5th anniversary of the first day of the Plan Year IN WHICH participation in the Plan commenced. So if you have monthly entry dates, and enter on December 1, 2012, your 5-year anniversary is January 1, 2017, not December 1, 2017. Is there any reason that this would not be considered a "uniform" retirement age?

Hopefully your alligator there won't be able to navigate the greens by swimming on them! Best wishes.

For Tom Poje in Jacksonville, and anyone else, and their families and friends who may end up in the path or suffer the after-effects, my heartfelt best wishes for you all to come through this unscathed, or relatively so. We'll be thinking about you!

Pardon my being obtuse, but that still doesn't answer the question. Under the (changed) law, the tax return due date for a calendar year C-corp is April 15th. And unless I'm incorrect, from 2016 through 2025, the extended tax filing date for a CALENDAR year C-corp is September 15th. It doesn't become October 15th until 2026. Do you have a citation that says otherwise? In other words, I don't think a 6 month extension is valid in the specific situation in the OP. My understanding is that for C-corps with fiscal years ending OTHER THAN 12/31 or 6/30, then they are due on the 15th day of the 4th month, and a 6-month extension is indeed available from that date. P.S. - yes, I do agree about minimum funding deadlines. Ah, my apologies - I do see it now. based upon the IRS 7004 instructions, which are contrary to the law, but the IRS exercised its authority to do otherwise. Good to know - glad this post came up!

Where does it say 6 months? I guess I missed that. Under both 404(a)(6) and 1.401(a)-1(c), it refers to the extended filing date. For a calendar year C-corp, the extended filing date is, I believe, September 15th until tax years beginning in 2026. Can you elaborate on the "6 month" piece?

What K2 said. While I have not specifically looked in many documents for this, those where I HAVE needed to look have always had language in the base plan document. Typically spouse, "issue", parents, estate, etc.

Jash, FWIW, I'm not sure we are necessarily disagreeing, but perhaps stating it a bit differently. I read it as applying to businesses under common control, but in the context of determining a parent-subsidiary common control relationship for 415 purposes. For example, if I own 100% of corp A, and individually am a 55% partner in partnership B/C, this is not subject to 415(h). Similarly, (according to unofficial IRS comments) if I am a sole prop, and also am a 55% partner in partnership B/C, this also does not subject me to 415(h). If, on the other hand, I own 100% of corporation A, and the corporation itself is a 55% partner in partnership B/C, then yes, 415(h) applies, because this is now in a parent-subsidiary context, and would be considered under "common control" for 415 purposes. Not sure what others may think. I'll be interested to hear everyone's thoughts - maybe I'm just looking at this all wrong.

Hey Austin - yup. I'm assuming, of course, that there is no ASG. Entirely possible, I suppose, that if someone tried to get too cute with this concept that the IRS might attempt to give them a hard time somehow. They do have that ability...

Thanks! Anyone know of anything similar with regard to a Welfare benefit plan or Section 125 Plan?

Check with the consultant. What type of entity is the business? Could be anything.

I'm not so sure about that. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but the "replacing 80% with 50%" modification, for 415 purposes, applies ONLY to 1563(a)(1) parent-subsidiary groups. Doesn't sound like that is the case here. If both entities were corporations, and they did not exist at the same time for any period whatsoever, then I would assert that there is no controlled group. Now, if one business was unincorporated, for example, then that's a different situation.

No, but 415 limits for the individual participants still apply.

But, as Jpod suggested above, you had the benefit every year of spending the tax saving of income taxes that you would have otherwise paid to the government. I'm not suggesting that it was a good investment, nor suggesting that it was a bad one. I'm merely suggesting that your logic is flawed. Ultimately, you may be absolutely correct that was invested poorly. Unfortunately, short of legal action (expensive, and you may lose!) it is water under the bridge at this point.

Agree. I wasn't saying that the transition period was negated, only pointing out that service prior to the effective date of becoming a CG can't be "ignored" in A's plan forever. I should have made that clearer.

I'm a big fan of "solo-k" plans, for the simple reason that we've made a lot of money taking them over when they have been botched administratively, and either self-correction or VCP filing is required, and the investment house is no help. The fees are wonderful! Can you establish and properly run a solo-k? Absolutely. Will it work out, be handled properly, and will you get the good help you need from your broker/investment house? That I can't say. Be careful and do your homework, and hopefully it will work out fine. And remember that free advice over the internet, including from people like me, is worth what you pay for it.

I have a problem with what I think OP is saying re eligibility - that is, OP is saying that for eligibility purposes in A's plan, service with B prior to the acquisition is disregarded. I disagree with this. For eligibility purposes, service with any member of the Controlled group must be counted. See DOL regulation 2530.210(d). I know there are some people who interpret the Treasury regulation (dealing with vesting service) 1.411(a)-(b)(3)(iv)(B) to mean that you don't have to credit the service with B prior to the effective date of CG status, but I don't agree, and there are luminaries such as Derrin Watson, for example, who agree with me. Or more accurately, I agree with them, because they have no need of hearing my opinion!

Not much hope of that...but maybe you can convince them you are a doctor - you could be the Patch Adams of the ERISA insanity wing.

Actually, 408(p)(10) gives you one year longer than 410(b)(6)(C). But that's all moot as the OP was asking about continuing after the transition period.

You don't worry about it, as you can't do anything about it. Just get the bond currently ASAP. The older forms will show no fidelity bond.

The employee gets the "credit" for what? In other words, what is this "credit?"

Nope. If you had 2 401(k) plans, it might be possible, but not with a SIMPLE. And as an aside, there is no "coverage testing" as such for a SIMPLE. You cover (at least) everyone who has met the maximum eligibility requirements. You can be more liberal if you wish.

I don't really have "advice" but I will say that we haven't filed for d-letters on termination for years. Particularly if using pre-approved documents where interim amendments have been timely adopted.

For 415 purposes, November would be more than 30 days following the 404(a)(6) deadline, so the match would be a 2017 contribution for such purposes. Probably not an issue, but something they should be aware of. Agree with Cuse - it does seem odd that it would be determined so late, but I'm in no position to offer any opinion as to why this might be desirable from the employer viewpoint. There's probably some good reason for it - maybe they have to wait until tax returns completed (extended due date) then have a board meeting or something, etc., etc...

You take the high road, and I'll take the low road.

LOTS of employers don't allow a loan to be rolled into their plan. I don't think this counts as "screwing" someone. But we can agree to disagree...