Mike Preston

I'd ask to see the Schedule SE's.

The trustee only need invest in accordance with the trust documents. If the trust documents allow pooled funds then there is no need to physically separate the investments. Please provide a citation to back up what you mean by "not looked upon favorably". In my experience it is done without hesitation.

Only if the participants in question are not receiving anywhere close to the 415 limit. Which is usually not the case.

No.

Certainly safe that way. If an amendment is adopted after EOY and before end of RAP it still "counts" if submitted. At least that was the rule before the IRS put the brakes on submissions.

If she is NHCE I don't see why not. Have to do it as a 2007-44 amendment within the RAP for the plan sponsor.

Other than the 50 employee rule, would the entities otherwise satisfy the criteria as QSLOB's?

Fair??? When I've dealt with this issue from the podium I have made it clear that a plan MAY, but is not required to honor a refund request of this sort. What does the plan say? It is unfair to a plan sponsor that pays meticulous attention to 401(a)(30) to be forced into the administrative hassle associated with processing a refund, and to accurately determine the impact on testing.

Unless the sole proprietor has also adopted the plan.

Sure, but it might blow up the prototype status.

"IL"'s (brother, sister, mother and father) are never attributed ownership except in some weird and kinky re-marriage scenarios with minor children. They are frequently NHCE's that the owner(s) wish to favor, providing a kick-start to the non-discrimination testing.

Depends on my mood. I might use 002 or 003. 001 seems like it is setting up for just what BG describes, which I'd rather avoid.

I thought the issue was what NRA to use? If the plans aren't being aggregated for coverage then your coverage ebar's will be based on th NRA of the plan in question. You are forced to aggregate for ABT purposes and you would then use the older for testing.

You want to try that again in English this time?

I want to know who made the decision that allowed both teams to wear their away colors. Wouldn't have surprised me had a pass or two or three been misdirected.

Then there is no question that 404a7 limits the 2018 deduction to the sum of (1) 6% of pay, which is $30,000; and, (2) the amount necessary to satisfy minimum funding, which is $200,000 as of the valuation date, but is higher than $200,000 if not deposited on the valuation date. The additional $10,000 which must be contributed to the defined contribution plan to satisfy 401(a)(4) for the year can be handled a number of ways and everybody has their own favorite. I think it is easiest and cleanest to make the additional $10,000 pursuant to an amendment under 1.401(a)(4)-(11)(g)(3) and to count those $10,000 as the first decutible dollars in 2019. Note that I'm assuming that your $40,000 amount is correct. In any well designed combo plan the DC plan is designed with each participant in their own group. If that is the case, we typically reduce allocations to HCE's to satisfy the 6% rule and don't have to worry about what you are going through.

Has the $40,000 been contributed? If so, what were the dates and amounts?

Not unless the plan is terminating. And then, only if allowed by the plan. That is, it isn't a decision that is solely up to the spouse.

What is the 412 Funding Target? What is the actuarial value of assets? Is all 500k compensation earned by participants who participate in both plans? If not, break it down. The answer to your first two questions is "Yes, probably." In order to remove the probably I need the answers to my questions.

Yes, unless the plan dictates you can't.

Or the AP giving written approval to the plan regarding sharing information with P.

I am ever the optimist!

OK, I'll bite. Forgetting everything else, describe where the proceeds of the loan go.

Yoou really need to review the whole thread. The loan comes out of the plan without tax ramifications. If you put that $10,000 in a safe place and don't spend it, and then repay it to the plan at some point you should be able to see that there is no increase in tax over what you would otherwise pay. Try to set up a spreadsheet that proves your point. I'm ever the optimist so I hope that will convince you your position is so very, very wrong.

I repeat: Anybody who claims that any part of the principal repaid is double taxed, is, we shall say, methematically challenged.