Mike Preston

It is not reported to the IRS. Only IRA accounts are reported to IRS. Since you said this is a profit sharing plan, and not an IRA, the financial institution reports only to you.

If you exclude it, you are said to be using cash basis accounting. If you include it, you are said to be using modified accrual based accounting. You can do either. Some practitioners think that you should be consistent from year to year. Others think there is no requirement to be consistent. No matter which you choose, you can't get in trouble if you are consistent.

Nice to see an example of the system, albeit delayed, working well.

Interest credits needn't be provided except at end of plan year. If more generous through 6/30 and then no further credit until 12/31 the net impact of November distribution will be copacetic. Document must be followed.

Yes.

I need to walk this back a tiny bit. Don't have time to research this today, but there are SOME in-service distribution options that CAN be eliminated even with respect to already existing account balances. I think it is contingent on what other in-service options remain. On the theory that the OP posits a world where the only in-service distribution option is being eliminated I stick to my original statement.

Yet another argument for a plan provision that allows for allocations pursuant to an "everybody in their own group" formula. You can always allocate comp-to-comp, if you want. And in this case you would not have to dilute the effectiveness of an employer contribution.

Put in a DB plan for 2018 pays big bucks to the owners. They will have a 5%+ contribution to the PS but they will be happy.

It is protected as to the benefits accrued.

Been there, done that. Larry's outline for his compensation presentations at various ASPPA Annual conferences is a classic. If you ask him real nice he might even send you a copy.

The moment the PBGC takes over the requirement for further 5500's ceases. Exactly where to cut the cord is sometimes an issue. The last time I went through this the plan sponsor decided the course of least resistance was to prepare filings for all years that ended prior to the date the plan was taken over by the PBGC and let the PBGC worry about any years after that.

Wonderful!

Luke, are you saying that the specificity mentioned argues for its applicability or against?

This still happens. As I recall, when queried at conferences governmental representatives reference the PTE dealing with short term loans.

The answer might change if there is a DB plan in play. Is there? Also, has the client been told that making substantial profit sharing contributions before the end of the year is a disease that can be eradicated by delaying anything that MIGHT not be deductible until the day after the close of the plan year? Clients frequently don't like hearing that when there is a commission-hungry advisor who has their ear. Those advisors do NOT have the client's best interests in mind.

Yup. All part of the expected. Warn the client in advance.

There is some confusion here which may or may not be relevant. The OP said: "... had to give ME additional profit sharing contributions." (Emphasis added). If you were a partner for any part of the plan year in question it is highly likely you were a "highly compensated employee" (what we call an HCE). If so, it is highly unlikely that they had to give you additional profit sharing contributions. MoJo just assumed you misspoke. CuseFan just assumed you were in that unlikely category of being a non-HCE. Can you clarify?

No pro-ration.

Looks like ACE has deleted all of his posts. For those trying to make sense of this thread he/she made a circuitous argument that invited the OP to require a deferral from a key employee before a plan would join a required aggregation group. About the nicest thing I can say about that would be that it is an aggressive interpretation. He/she then invited the OP to adopt that interpretation and to report back on the negative consequences, if any. Finally, he/she asked for what people thought of his/her line of reasoning. I told him/her. I may have a detail or two wrong, but since the posts have been deleted, memory is all I have to go on.

I have never seen a cohesive definition. Hence, it is up to the Plan Administrator to decide. Whatever criteria they end up using is best if documented in some fashion and then applied to future determinations. But in the circumstance you posit it doesn't sound like retirement is an accurate description.

Well, you asked. I disagree with Luke in the sense that ACE's argument is based on not an interesting argument but a tortuous argument meant to confuse the meaning of "participates" (as defined under 410) and "contributes" as defined under 402(g) (and other sections). A long description that is ultimately based on a fundamental mis-reading and mis-interpreting is not "interesting" to me. At all. And your invitation to the OP to adopt your interpretation followed by your further invitation to be kept informed smacks of intentionally encouraging a course of action that is much more than likely to fail and then waiting around for the horrific result just for kicks. In other words, everything about your interpretation, in my view, sucks.

No.

I think it sucks. I'm away otherwise I would say more.

1: No

Yes. Yes.