Mike Preston

Of course not! But that wasn't the point I was addressing.

Does the recent statutory change to partial plan terminations affect this transaction?

What is there to call about? It's just a form letter acknowledging receipt of the 5558 and asking the client to make sure they file on time. Of course it's a little silly the date being so late and all but hey that's the profession we're in!

Yes.

Nor here.

If the plan is aggregated then the contribution counts towards the overall gateway.

Excellent terminology at that.

You can't have an hours requirement for a safe harbor contribution. Ee1 will therefore get a top heavy contribution starting in 2018. You will use 12/31/2017 as your determination date for top heavy in 2018. Don't forget gateway.

No.

No.

What about the officer compensation threshold issue?

Very strange message.

Yes but he is ill advised to do so. An EIN will be necessary when the first 5500-ez must be filed. In addition, most investments will require a taxpayer ID. It is not advisable to use an individual's social security number as the taxpayer ID for a qualified plan investment.

Look to the minimum benefit section of the plan. You want to insert language something like the following: there shall be a minimum cash balance hypothetical account established for partner 2 as of x date in the following amount (put in the amount you want).

Not without an 11g amendment.

In the unlikely event that you had no self-employment income in 2020 your election would mean nothing and can be ignored. In the alternative, what is the effective date of the plan? If it is 1/1/2021 or later, again, your election would mean nothing and can be ignored. In the alternative, if the plan was effective some date in 2020, but the document allows for a separate effective date just for salary deferrals and that date is 1/1/2021 or later, again, your election would mean nothing and can be ignored. Does one of these three scenarios fit your facts?

What does the deferral election say?

I don't think the Plan Administrator has any liability in this case, unless the plan's procedures include review of submitted forms for validity along with formally notifying the participant that the form has been reviewed and found to be valid. Of course, I am assuming that the beneficiary designation itself, or the accompanying instructions, if any, specifically state(s) that in the absence of a valid spousal waiver the death benefit is paid pursuant to the plan's terms. I just checked my beneficiary designations and I think it does an adequate job by: 1) Including language something like the following - Your spouse will be paid the spousal death benefit as specified in the plan, unless you waive the spousal death benefit by completing this Form, and, your spouse voluntarily consents to both your waiver and to your designated beneficiary(ies) by completing the spousal consent section of this form. Without such waiver and consent, the spousal death benefit must be paid directly to your spouse. 2) Including in the relevant section a requirement for spousal signature and the signature line being clearly marked as asking for the signature of the spouse. I don't believe it is standard of care in the industry to perform a detailed review of beneficiary designation forms until a death benefit is payable.

There is no requirement that the TD Ameritrade assets be rolled at all.

Same here, but I agree with prior comments that it just doesn't matter.

Please re-read my comment. You have a problem that needs fixing.

What does you "gave him" mean? Should be non discretionary as far as you are concerned. Something doesn't sound right.

There is no duty of consistency.

Where did the op go?

The accountant is technically correct. However it wouldn't surprise me if the IRS would approve a retroactive amendment of some sort which applies the deduction to 2019. Through EPCRS, of course.