Belgarath

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...

That's what I got out of all this as well. Thanks! I couldn't find any basis for another conclusion, but wasn't all that confident...

Ditto, and congrats!

Corp A. and Corp B are a controlled group. They have separate plans. Corp A's plan passes all coverage/nondiscrimination testing. Corp B's plan does not. Is Corp A's plan subject to disqualification, or only Corp. B's? Seems like the latter, but I'm not certain.

Since they work in the U.S., they have "U.S. source income" and therefore don't fall under the statutory exclusion for nonresident aliens with no U.S. source income. So you have to include them for coverage testing purposes, unless they fall under some other statutorily excludable category. P.S. - under "other" statutorily excludable, I'm also including someone whose U.S. source income from the employer is exempt under a tax treaty. See 1.410(b)-6(c)(2).

Agree - Revenue Procedure 2016-51, Appendix A, .05(9)(a) is very specific on the correction for the situation as you describe it, and earnings would only be due on missed matching amounts, which doesn't apply in your situation.

Governmental plans are not subject to the J&S requirements of 401(a)(11) and 417. I don't know that this changes the answer re hardship distributions, but depending upon the type of governmental plan (public safety, for example) the NRA might well have been less than age 62. However, going from memory, the anti-cutback rules of 411(d)(6) also don't apply to governmental plans. If so, then a lot would depend upon the document provisions. This could get really tricky. There are some proposed regs re NRA on governmental plans, but I frankly haven't paid much attention, as we don't do governmental plans. Maybe someone else more familiar with them can give you a better discussion of the subject, and whether any of it applies to your situation anyway. Regardless of what MUST be done, I'm with previous posters that you should ALWAYS track the amounts separately!

I can't even figure out how to set an alarm clock, much less program anything...

If you are asking about the Voluntary Fiduciary Correction program (VFC) then that's correct - no fee. If you are talking about the 5500 program (DFVCP) then yes, there's a fee. Sometimes the letters in this alphabet soup get mixed up, and I'm not entirely sure what's being discussed.

Up here in the Northeast, we're only getting about 2/3's. BUT, all the hype made me decide to look on the internet yesterday as to what happens in future eclipses, and it just so happens that April 8, 2024 will put where I live in the totality, so I don't have to move off my deck to observe if I so choose.

Thanks my2. I didn't forget it, but assumed that full correction was implicit in all of this. However, you are of course correct, and I shouldn't have assumed that everyone out there would understand this.

It sounds like you do not yet know if this is happening or has happened to any other participants? Is there any possibility that, for example, it is a simple mistake and the deferrals have been deposited to the account of another participant? Such things DO happen. You may want to consider, before calling in the DOL, simply asking your employer why your deferrals are not showing up in your account. If the answer is unsatisfactory, unclear, or standard BS stonewalling, then by all means contact the DOL. I'd just be very hesitant to contact the DOL without at least giving the company the opportunity to explain or discover a simple and honest mistake. If it WAS an honest mistake, and you sic the DOL on them, it may bode poorly for your future at the company, which may or may not be a bad thing from your viewpoint.

I'd swear I've seen, and perhaps been involved in a discussion similar to this, but darned if I can find it, so... Plan is currently a 3% nonelective "maybe" plan. So, at this point, they are NOT a safe harbor plan for 2017. Suppose many of the employees will now be entering a union. There's no problem with amending the plan to exclude union employees. What I want to conform is this: since they will, for 2017, have both union and non-union wages, then for 410(b) purposes (1.410(b)-6(d)(2)(i)) they have "dual" status - so when it comes to testing profit sharing allocations, they will be non-excluded for purposes of their non-union hours and wages, as well as top heavy. Once the plan amends into Safe Harbor status for the year, must they receive SH 3% on the non-union wages? My inclination is yes, but I'd appreciate any other opinions. Thanks. (edited to remove a section that I intended to delete, but forgot to in original post)

Thanks.

Yes, with the caveat that for these purposes, related employers that are part of the same controlled group or affiliated services group under IRC 414 are treated as a single employer.

"The litigant accepts responsibility for the document he or she submits to a court." I love your viewpoint. Sadly, it seems to me that no one is ever responsible for anything these days - the fault always lies with "someone else." I just wasn't raised that way...