Mike Preston

Yes, I know. Can't use EZ. Answer doesn't change if partners are S-corps.

Been there, done that. Do it.

Pretty sure it was at ASPPA annual 2016, but no guarantees.

In Los Angeles for ASPPA conference. Hit me up next week if you haven't found what you are looking for.

If he owned 100% of both entities there is no way to escape aggregation.

Only commenting on one thing: the IRS has stated that a plan termination does not create a short year for purposes of eliminating the ability to combine plans for testing.

Why do you think that a plan termination forces a short plan year for this purpose?

I'm afraid I just now noticed that this is a plan with everyone in their own group. That is a horse of an entirely different color. Change the facts slightly. 8 eligible NHCE's. No terminees. Allocate to 5. IRS takes the position that it can't, by definition, satisfy reasonable classification. Therefore no ABT. Change the facts so that the 6th through 8th persons are terminees. Doesn't change things. No reasonable classification so no ABT.

Works for me!

The history on this issue is far from determinative. There are some at the IRS who believe that excluding those terminees in favor of actives does not constitute a reasonable classification. I'm on record as saying that it SHOULD be a reasonable classification, but that and $8 or so will get you a big coffee at a national coffee shop. I'm further on record saying that I don't think any court in the land would consider it any other than a reasonable classification, but again, that and $8 or so will get you a big coffee at a national coffee shop. Ultimately, it should be the client's decision as to whether remedial action is required.

I don't think a SHM is considered a QMAC for that purpose. I have even less strong feelings about 2K. There are two ways to interpret the instructions, both are reasonable and with one interpretation (the more logical one) I would not fill in 2K for a SHM plan and with the other one (the more literal one) I would. So, it is take your pick as to which way to go. Oh yeah....which is which? More logical one: the instructions are intended to instruct inclusion of code 2K when the plan is subject to a 401(m) test. More literal one: Instructions don't specifically say that 2K is not applicable in a SHM plan, so you are supposed to include it.

I don't think so, but interested in others' take.

I think Dave's been tinkering, because I think the system was set to display a thread once and only once at some point. I don't remember when it changed, but maybe Dave can set it back? EDIT: It wasn't Dave, it was me! Bill, see what your "Show me" setting is. If it is "Content items, comments, and reviews" change it to "Content items only".

I'm about to lose it. This whole discussion is nothing more than an attempt to implement something which is not very thinly veiled discrimination against a class of human beings least able to protect themselves. I wouldn't entertain a discussion of how to illegally discriminate against those over 40 (or under age 30 for that matter) and I applaud the courts when they bitch-slap political parties for implementing policies which attempt to disenfranchise and/or marginalize a class of voters. In the vast majority of cases where a business is found guilty of hiring illegal workers most of those illegal workers will have come from a single country. And if that isn't prohibited discrimination based on national origin I'm a monkey's uncle. Now don't go nibbling around this issue by trying to say that one can pass muster if the illegal population is evenly split between two different countries. One can't. Because discrimination against those who are from a country (any country) other than our own is still illegal.

Dave, Thanks. I didn't notice anything different in the description versus my previous expectation. It doesn't work for me but let *me* try to be a bit clearer in what I'm experiencing... When I hold my mouse over the topic (note that I'm *not* clicking anything), the first thing that happens is that the mouse cursor changes from an arrow (pointer) to a hand, then the font of the topic title changes color so that it is red, and then a tool tip pops up. After that, about 60% of the time, a small square speech balloon appears with what appears to be an "arrow circle". Whether or not the small square speech balloon appears, the tool tip goes away and then the small square speech balloon goes away and then I get the large speech balloon pop-up window with the 2 subwindows previously described. When I hold my mouse over the topic and hold the left-click button down, the only thing that happens, no matter how long I hold it down, is that the mouse pointer switches from a hand to a regular arrow, and when I let go of the button, the system takes me to the actual post. This is what I would expect when the system registers me having made a left-click while pointing to the topic title. If I right-click instead, the same thing as left-click happens except when I let go I get the usual right-click sub-menu ("Open Link in new tab...., etc.). Hope this helps.

Clients that want to do this are usually after the funds withheld or contributed on behalf of these individuals before they are deemed ineligible. Can't be done.

Well, if you can find a cite, do so. My memory tells me there is something out there (from the DOL I think) that makes it clear that you can't. And if I was engaged by a cient I might even be able to find it. :-)

I get sub-windows of first post and last post, but no editing.

Sorry, but I remain steadfast. You may NOT exclude persons who are not authorized to work in the USA. If they work, you may not rely on the fact that they are doing so illegally to reduce or eliminate their benefits. This is well settled. At least before 1/20/2017.

How is that NOT discriminating on the basis of national origin? You can't do that, so don't do that. And that's my opinion until somebody provides me with a citation that says otherwise.

Did your legal professional bother to provide you with a citation?

You can't do that, so don't do that.

Have you bothered to read 404(a)(7)? "In the case of a defined benefit plan which is a single employer plan, the amount necessary to satisfy the minimum funding standard provided by section 412 shall not be less than the excess (if any) of the plan's funding target (as defined in section 430(d)(1) over the value of the plan's assets (as determined under section 430(g)(3)." Contribute only 6% to DC plan. Let a4 test fail. Adopt -11(g) amendment for the other 2%. Easy peasy.

... change what displays when reading a thread so that there is an immovable frame at the top which displays the thread title. Poor man's solution: press Alt-D and the address bar magically changes from "benefitslink.com/boards/index.php" to "http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/xxxxxxxxxx" where xxxxxxxxxxxx is the thread name.

You also have to assume that the FT - AVA is less than 25% of pay.... Other than that, you are correct. But confirm that the full 8% was deposited to the DC plan before the end of the year, right? If so, this is just another example of how plan sponsors can be hurt financially by funding a plan before the end of the year.