Mike Preston

You are so kind.

You are correct that without a plan specific beneficiary designation the default language in the plan document would determine the order.

Yes, he can have separate plans. Horribly inefficient to do so, but it isn't illegal. Must aggregate for 415 purposes.

Yes, still. Single member LLC is just another way to describe a sole prop.

Then use the unreduced amount for the determination of current year contribution under the terms of the plan. Remembering to limit the 415 on the basis of aggregated comp.

Anything you say can and will be used against you..

What do the qdro procedures say?

Very sorry to hear this. Lou and I went way back. All the way to the same dorm at the University of Michigan. Rest in peace.

I'd say you are spot on.

Just because somebody "retires" doesn't mean they will start Social Security. Besides, the decision to retire at any age is subject to so many individual data points there is absolutely no way you can state that it doesn't make sense. You just don't know.

My guess is that the 999 was meant as a placeholder by whoever programmed the website. I would be very surprised if 999 turned out to be an accurate number.

But more likely than not correct.

Pigs get fat hogs get slaughtered.

Why are you wasting your time trying to assist somebody to do something which they shouldn't be doing? Just have them set up a regular plan including the employee.

This whole thing smells. I would bet dollars to donuts that this will not stand up under audit. Run.

I can't imagine the trust document not allowing it. Unless there are additional non qualifying assets an existing bond of 180,000 should stave off an audit. Don't you mean that the surgery center is not a party in interest with respect to the plan?

You can make the termination contingent on the transaction.

Not that I am aware of.

Just spitballing here, but I'm thinking about 401(b). It almost seems like we are always in a position where an amendment is mandatory. While some things require a current amendment (interim amendments) other things can be deferred until the 2 year window opens up (required amendment and restatement). Then, of course, there are those that aren't technically part of either (voluntary amendments). Each of these have an associated 401(b) period. In the olden days, the IRS would accept an amendment to any provision as long as it was made before the end of any overlapping 401(b) period. If pressed, I wonder if a similar result could be obtained here? Stated in a more technical manner: can the fact that an amendment and restatement window is extended by two years (with an SCP requirement, admittedly) nonetheless allow for adoption of an amendment by the end of the 401(b) period that retroactively covers the desired matching provision? I know it is a stretch, but I wouldn't hesitate to argue it upon audit if the IRS had indegestion.

Thought you were dealing with calendar year 2021 failure, only. With 2020 thrown in, yes, SCP. And in answer to your question: no need for VCP. HOWEVER, I'm not convinced the documenation is inconsistent with plan operation. Clearly there was some legal document signed before 1/1/2020 establishing the conjoining of A and B. Such a resolution that includes reference to a surviving match provision may be all you need.

Just amend. No SCP required.

Wow! This issue keeps coming up. While it leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, I think it works AS LONG AS THE PS FORMULA IS WRITTEN INTO THE DOCUMENT AND THAT FORMULA SATISFIES A SAFE HARBOR. I maintain that a new comparability formula such as everybody in their own group can NEVER satisfy the regs to qualify as an actual SAFE HARBOR.

Correct. Correct. Note, however that the dollar limit will exceed the comp limit somewhere between 67 and 68. Thereafter the comp limit will control.

I suspect that the IRS would object to the following scenario: adopt a plan on 7/1/2021 effective 1/1/2020 which is specifically allowed per the new law. Don't fund anything for 2020 and, magically, what would otherwise be a new plan for 2021 that is top-heavy in that first year (2021) is not top-heavy for 2021 at the cost of a 5500 with a whole bunch of zeroes. Sounds abusive to me, but it sure does seem to "work".

But that isn't the definition.