Mike Preston

Pet peeve: cites (short for citations). No cites that I'm aware of but any reasonable definition should suffice. How about the first order of business at the first meeting being the establishment of the frequency of future meetings? Such criteria as frequent enough to ensure timely decisions regarding Trustee responsibility along with the criteria for accelerating the frequency in special circumstances sounds about right to me.

On second thought, maybe not if your 5558 only requested an extension until 4/15/2016. Doesn't the 5558 still have a date that the extension is being requested through?

Absolutely.

Vlad, It doesn't matter if they can pass coverage on their own. What matters is if they can pass both coverage and non-discrimination on their own. And based on what you have described, they can't. Because if they could there would be no reason to even mention gateway.

Clients think the darndest things at times.

Other NHCEs not in CB plan must get gateway if they are entitled to $0.01 in DC plan.

Because he is giving 7.5% to the NHCE's in the DB plan. Weird, huh?

Check past threads for application of the at-risk rules in this situation when determining the max.

If not a site, what about a cite? :-)

Correct.

Yes.

It is a disease. Very sad.

Yes.

The doc requires the language because SH contributions can not be purely elective.

Which bite of the apple would you like a response to?

2 cents: there was a pretty big country hit within the last year or two (I think) called "Red Solo Cup" (again, I think).

Don't listen to country music much, huh?

"If there is no mention of this in the plan documents, can a plan change the tables used from one year to the next?"

Seem?

Accepting the deferrals is most assuredly a qualification failure. I see no problem with filing EPCRS with a suggested correction of retroactively amending to allow the deferrals. Worst case scenario they decline your suggested correction and demand disgorging and amended tax returns. But that is what is the proper correction isn't it? You might deem such a correction expensive, but it is less expensive than audit cap which would layer a pretty hefty sanction on top of the (expensive?) correction. I'd look for any evidence to support the retroactivity, including but not limited to a mea culpa by the accountant indicating intent to provide 401(k) feature.

Yes.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i5500ez--yyyy.pdf Substitute year for yyyy

Maybe it wasn't a safe harbor plan after all? Check the Notice.... was it timely? was it deficient? If the Notice was invalid that means what? Is it then not a SH plan which can be aggregated for coverage. It would seem that the aggregated plan would have to satisfy ADP if the effect of aggregation is to add a zero % HCE to the mix. Or maybe, if that doesn't satisfy the paranoid amongst us, at the least it offers a EPCRS submission with the suggested cure being the aggregation of the plans for coverage and non-discrimination.

Good point. The loan procedures might be less liberal than the regulatory (not statutory) framework.

If the loan had quarterly payments with the first one due 10/1/2015, then the "cure period" extends until 3/31/2016. Hence there would be no deemed distribution if the 10/1/2015 payment is cured by 3/31/2016. I would strongly suggest that it best to bring the entire loan up to date, but it may not be feasible to do so.