Mike Preston

There is something formal (a court case? a PLR?) that holds it is allowable to have an effective date that pre-dates the existence of the plan sponsor, at least back to a date that is 364 days earlier than the end of the short first fiscal year. I just can't remember what it is! Something like Plastics Engineering. Don't quote me.

Unless you have a document that lays out a scenario which is atypical, matching calculations are based on cash basis earnings. If the plan entry date is May 1st then a paycheck issued on May 1st would give rise to deferrals being withheld from the paycheck and the deferrals would give rise to the requisite match.

I grant that Roth, in part, is better for those who can accurately predict a future which involves higher tax rates. As has been mentioned already, there is no way to reliably correlate low earnings from this one person at this one employer to a low current tax rate. Hence why it should always be left to the participant to decide. I still think there is something fundamentally inconsistent in play. If I accept the above approach (that it is better to contribute Roth dollars [after-tax] when current tax rates are low) why has Congress adopted a regime that limits Roth availability to those with incomes above a certain amount? To ultimately increase tax revenues they should be discouraging those with lower current income and encouraging those with higher current income. It has been my experience that people in lower tax brackets have virtually no interest in Roth.

Isn't the rationale irrational? Why in the world would you want those with lesser tax rates to be given an "includes less taxable" benefit? If my tax rate is low then I get maximum advantage from income. If my tax rate is high, I want as much excluded from tax as I can arrange. Something is whack here.

They won't do an indefinite extension but they will effectively do the same thing by granting incremental extensions. At some point I would expect the PBGC to offer an alternative to treat the non-cashed check as stale along with the participant as missing. I can't speak to a Trustee that fails in its fiduciary capacity. Separate issue and one that the PBGC is likely to shrug at which could, as you note, leave a plan sponsor with nothing but bad choices.

The analogy is inapt. DRO's are "special" (death is not). The question, as has been stated above by at least one participant in this thread, is when did the right to a distribution congeal? I would venture to say it is when all acts of decision by the participant and the plan's representative have been completed.

"Has the PBGC ever given any indication that plan fiduciaries have a duty to make sure that lump sum checks are actually cashed?" Seriously? Check to see what is being certified on the 501 and then get back to me.

If the 90 days is getting close, the correct course of action is to call the PBGC and ask for an extension. I can't imagine them not granting it. Just like I can't imagine the PBGC not staking out a position that is antithetical to yours, complete with sanctions.

ETA, I'd go down a slightly different path. I'd see if the existing plans don't already have language in their trust provisions that allow the investments to be combined while keeping the plans separate. Seems much easier to me.

I thought the month thing was modified such that if the 501 is filed within 90 days then the PBGC won't consider it late. So, the "real" due date is 90 days. Yes?

Then post #3 gives you the answers.

Needs to drop below 238.421 to avoid the increase in 1) comp limit; 2) 415 dc limit but db limit and key ee are going up to 215k and 175k anyway.

A one-person PC that wants to set up a safe-harbor plan needs an advisor who knows more than he/she does.

Somebody signed the 501 before confirming the last check was CASHED? Really?

True-ups involve, by definition, more work. Hence, higher fees and more chances for things to go wrong. I don't advocate for true-ups if the plan's administrative expense is being borne by the plan itself. The exception is if there are relatively few participants and the increase in administrative expense is minimal.

https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/employee-plans-customer-account-services If it applies: "Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS) VCP submission status questions only: (626) 927-2011 You will need to provide the submission's nine-digit control number, beginning with “911” stamped on the submission acknowledgment letter, or, if an acknowledgment letter has not been received, the sponsor’s EIN and the plan number."

There are reasons why a 12/31 fiscal taxpayer might want a 401(k) by 9/30, so the question is still valid even if it is a 12/31 fiscal. And the answer to both parts of the OP is "no". The first "no" means that there is no requirement to fund a plan by the end of the first plan year to have a valid plan. The second "no" means that there is no deadline of 12/31 associated with a 9/30 plan year. However, deferrals can only be taken out of payroll and once taken out of payroll must find their way to the plan in short order. So that may be the functional equivalent of a 12/31 deadline (ok, maybe ~1/7/17) if the goal is to reduce 2016 taxable income.

Echo squared. Been doing it that way for years. It is our position that withheld taxes are not plan assets. So while I agree that there is liability associated with doing it this way, the liability is not fiduciary with respect to the plan, only the Plan Sponsor.

Mine works fine on this site.

Any semi-competent TPA will be able to answer your questions if you can provide them with some basic information on the employee populations of A and New DBA.

And if it isn't clear from what has already been posted, make sure the rules on NUA are factored into the decision making process.

Yes.

legort69, what is your role to the plan?

Not.

Perfectly allowable as long as the authorizing Trust document allows. RTFD (read the fantastic document).