Mike Preston

Zero is not undefined. Zero is not MORE than 60% of zero.

I disagree. 416 is clear that in order to be top-heavy the percent requirement is that the keys have a benefit which is more than 60%. Words have meaning. Having sat with government representatives discussing the implications of adopting a plan which is then not funded for the first year (is there a 5500 requirement? successor plan rules? amongst other things) and heard them universally say that yes, Virginia, there is a 5500 requirement, etc. I think the adoption of the plan effective in 2019 means that the 2020 year is definitely not top heavy.

I will not second that. I don't believe you lose reliance on a provision that isn't modified. If you really want a conformed document you can create one for administrative purposes.

Since we have gone down the rabbit hole already I offer my internally developed worksheet. There is no particular rationale as to why I have 3 columns displayed. It is just a tool of convenience to be able to see, side by side, 3 calculations. I've been told by more than 1 person that I've done something wrong, but when pressed they have not provided clarification. Feel free to use, but if you find something wrong please let me know. 404a7 Limitation Calculation for BenefitsLink.xls

So you're saying look at the law? How innovative! Thanks.

Understood. There's also another prong to this calculation predicated on funding Target versus assets. But that's probably more detailed than is necessary at this point. Isn't this stuff fun?

The rmd for the owner is zero because of zero vesting for the first two years anyway, right? How confident are you that the triggering age for 5% owner automatically changes to 72? I haven't seen anything that formally addresses the issue. Of course because 72 is greater than 70 and a half you can't really go wrong with your interpretation because the IRS won't care.

What about the circumstance when there's 25% contribution to the DC plan?

Have you called the irs? See my previous message above.

See Revenue Procedure 2007-44.

Which can be eliminated by making an election under 4972 c.

Maybe it is a scope thing. Computers are so darn smart these days. Maybe if you invoke the ignore user option as I indicated it ignores that user's future posts in that thread. Maybe if you invoke it the way Dave described it completely ignores that user. Worth a shot.

Who is Mike Baker? :-0 And I see nothing inappropriate in this thread. In fact, I find it kind of interesting. The OP gets kudos for finding the right subsection within which to post.

I think others have already done a bang-up job on that score. I don't expect to see his conspiracy theories any more.

I was on the fence about Ken. While the posts definitely seem pedantic and a little off topic, the referenced links are always to government web pages intending to educate all that stumble in. Seems like it walks the tightrope for me. But I wouldn't strongly speak in favor of Ken's posts if Dave decided they are not welcome.

Nope.

I'm thinking the same.

Check out the following outline that appears to be authored by Janice Wegesin: https://www.asppa.org/sites/asppa.org/files/PDFs/2015AnnualHandouts/WS40 - Administrators Rubik Cube Handling Short-Plan Year and Off-Calendar Year Plan Issues.pdf See the text box on slide 6.

Bill, it is even easier than what Dave describes. Just hover over the user's name *OR* avatar. The ignore user option is near the bottom of the popup. Maybe it will do what you want if you select all four ignore options. Or you could just say the word and I'll mark him as a spammer. Least I can do now that we are related and all. :-)

And can be extended 2 and 1/2 months by use of a form 5558.

It depends on the reason for the overpayment. If it's just plain a mistake it can be refunded. But the penalty for being wrong is severe. So it's worthwhile to be sure.

I don't know how you can have a short plan year structured in such a way that nobody receives an accrual and satisfy 411. Maybe it can be done but I'd like to see proof.

Yes. No.

Did you miss the fact that she's age 55?

Doesn't satisfy 411 accrual rules.