Mike Preston

I don't think having HCE's creates a substantive difference. To satisfy 11(g) the 11(g) allocation, alone, must satisfy a4. Also, the sum of the 11(g) and the otherwise existing allocation must satisfy a4. If the otherwise existing allocation is a flat percentage of pay, designing an 11(g) amendment that satisfies a4 on its own yet fails the requirement to satisfy a4 based on the sum of the two is going to be very, very difficult.

I find the instructions that address this issue are a bit unclear: "If you meet both deadlines, you may begin using the “20-” prefix with your enrollment number beginning April 1, 2020, regardless of whether you received an official renewal notice from the Joint Board. " May????? This implies that you can continue to use the "17-" prefix for some indeterminate period of time after March 31, 2020. That doesn't seem right to me. I think what the instructions are trying to say here is closer to: If you meet both deadlines, you may begin using the “20-” prefix with your enrollment number beginning April 1, 2020, regardless of whether you received an official renewal notice from the Joint Board. Even if both deadlines are met, you may continue using the "17-" prefix until you receive an official renewal notice. Once you receive an official renewal notice you must use the "20-" prefix. Kristina, your post indicates that since I submitted and paid already I can use "20-" without waiting for April 1st and that doesn't seem right to me, either.

It is not meaningless. There are significant, but subtle differences.

Regarding the above, that really should not be necessary. Any decent tax preparer will complete a tax return limiting the 402g deferral to that year's limitation.

Is there a code for "Gee, the owner was asleep at the wheel when he/she deferred in excess of the 402(g) limit. Rather than follow the code and regs which requires taxation when distributed, said owner has now compounded the problem by taking an inservice distribution." Why, yes there is! It is whatever code you would use for an inservice distribution (either pre or post 59 and 1/2). 1099 issue solved. Now to the more fun part. Did the plan allow the in-service distribution? If so, did the owner fill out the correct forms to generate the inservice distribution? If no to either, you now have a qualification issue that needs to be fixed. Are we having fun, yet?

All 11(g) amendments are, by definition, additive. They are, by definition, on top of and independent (other than the requirement that the sum of the "regular" and 11(g) amendments satisfy a(4)) of the "regular" allocation. There is no requirement that the regular allocation fail testing, in any way. How low do you want to go? That is, can an 11(g) amendment be scripted that essentially adds a non-discriminatory allocation on top of a zero regular allocation? Zero too low for you? Where do you draw the line? I think being deductible with other contributions for the subsequent year dovetails nicely (Larry thinks, I think, that current year deductibility is even allowed.) There must be a gazillion threads on this issue over the many years that 11(g) has been on the books. I'm not going to re-hash them here. Either one believes the regular allocation must fail a4 to use an 11(g) or they don't. I don't.

Agreed.

I think "97" pre-dates the publication of a4 regs. The IRS could have hung 411(d)(6) requirements on 11(g) amendments. They didn't. Under the above interpretation there is no such thing as an 11(g) amendment and that can't be right.

We aim to please!

Coincident with event?

And, I might add, is brilliant! You have set a high bar.

I think this is a fine modus operandi unless and until the IRS changes the instructions to reflect the fact that no longer will they ignore penalties. Until then, the only risk is that the IRS will make up some rule that allows them to levy penalties retroactively and essentially ignore their own instructions. BTW, Linda tells me that the 5500 no longer has a mechanism for indicating purely an address change. Hey, don't blame me I'm just the messenger!

What about an 11(g) amendment? May not get you all the way there (depending on how conservative you want to be), but it might fit. Have to be careful about deduction years [Larry and I might disagree on how that works].

The aggregated plans are top-heavy. The SH plan's SH contributions are deemed to satisfy top-heavy.

Hmmmmmmm, communicate directly with government employees much?

Things have taken a dark turn. Let's turn back a bit. The IRS is unlikely to challenge compensation to an owner's wife of less than $30,000 as unreasonable even if the only work is "pillow talk advisory" in nature. But I agree, it sounds like an excess that must be corrected. Unless the last payroll was an error and it should be re-run in which case maybe it isn't an excess at all!

Not that I'm aware of.

If it is everybody in their own group, sure.

Are you saying that "if nothing found there" prong requires (and therefor allows) a Plan Administrator to determine what method to use and can do so even if such method is inconsistent with state law?

The form doesn't specifically ask for it. It is up to the person filling out the designation to specify one or the other when there are multiple beneficiaries. If not specified then one would look to the plan for clarification and if nothing found there, state law.

And since amendments won't be mandatory for a while, a plan sponsor can just go ahead and implement what they want and then follow up with language that describes what they have opted to do. This is one of those circumstances where a plan sponsor might want to publicize the availability through the equivalent of an SMM before the actual due date, which would typically be a much later date that tracks to the actual amendment.

Answers to second paragraph: Yes. No.

I think we are all confused because you say one thing and then contradict yourself and then, for good measure say something that doesn't seem to make sense. So....... Agreed that it should not matter. Then you say "Since R had not........he would get the greater..." which is saying that something is different about R even though he would "get the greater" just as if he had rather than had not. Bottom line that either adopt on consecutive days or have the Administrator disambiguate as it sees fit.

Remarkably opaque.

Should be, unless there is a ps cont that limits the QNEC to the 415 limit.