Griswold

It's not a nqdc plan because it's not compensation.

Company has always been under 100 participants but has been filing 5500s for its H&W plan. Now saying that its broker filed those in error and doesn't have a wrap plan in place. Should they correct the 5500s even though they didn't have to file in the first place?

I have a plan where the required distribution language reads "by January 1st of the calendar year following the calendar year in which he/she attains the age of [70 1/2]". I suppose this qualifies as meeting the RMD requirements, but it struck me as odd and wanted to ask around and see if I was missing something. Can a plan sponsor select a slightly earlier date for the RMDs and not run afoul of the rules? (They must have gotten a determination letter at some point, so it passed muster in this form.) It's an ESOP if it matters. (And I'm putting aside the SECURE 2.0 Act's updates to the ages for now.) Thanks!

See IRC 410(a)(3)(A) and Treas. Reg. 1.410(a)-3(e), Example 3.

A private US based company has two equity plans, one for granting options in the US and one for granting warrants in an EU country. (As I understand it, they grant warrants to comply with local law). I would think the foreign grants are included in the Rule 701 analysis, but I'm getting a different story from a record keeper and I can't seem to find any guidance on the matter. Anyone have thoughts or a good resource to point me to?

Are options counted for purposes of determining key employees under the 1% owners prong? The regulation says a 1% owner is any employee who owns “more than 1 percent of the value of the outstanding stock of the corporation or stock possessing more than 1 percent of the total combined voting power of all stock of the corporation.” Treas. Reg. §1.416-1 T-16. Assuming the options don't have voting rights, to me this says you don't count options as they're not outstanding stock. Is there any authority that says otherwise? Perhaps if the options are fully vested the employee might own 1 percent of the value?

Thanks, Brian! Love your office hours!

Let's say an executive is currently employed and on his employer's group health plan. The executive is being terminated in connection with an M&A transaction but will become an consultant to the company for six months as an independent contractor. As part of the termination, the employer has offered to pay for COBRA coverage for him and his dependents for six months. The executive is already eligible for Medicare. Assuming he is not enrolled in Medicare, he's still eligible for the COBRA coverage, correct? He would lose COBRA coverage if, after the COBRA coverage becomes effective, he then enrolls in Medicare. Do I have that right? TYIA

https://www.askebsa.dol.gov/FormSelector/

https://www.nceo.org/service-provider-directory

Thanks!

...

Thanks! Missing a word here at the start of the last paragraph: "The rule of parity can be only applied with respect to the service a Participant."

https://www.nceo.org/Terminating-ESOP/pub.php/id/578

Converting to a C-Corp. is the way to get the 1042 treatment. There are occasionally bills to extend this to passthrough entities, but currently only C-Corps. can get 1042 treatment. Just be sure it's worthwhile and get good advice.