RatherBeGolfing

Let us know when the DOL reaches out... 😟

If you need the additional 2 months for the SAR, amend the 5500 and check the box

I agree.

I have used FTWilliam, Relius/FIS, Datair, and ASC. Relius/FIS has the most bells and whistles, but I found that we simply didn't use 90% of the features. Also, the system isnt wasn't that user friendly. ASC is decent but clunky. Support staff is great. FTW is very user friendly, and the modules are integrated. They are constantly adding new features. Lacks some options on the 403b side. Great support staff. I prefer FTW, but the details of your practice will dictate what the best fit is for you. All three are better than Datair in my opinion.

This.

Many of the S2.0 summaries and webinars have referred to it as testing separately. I think that's where alot of the confusion is coming from.

As far as amendments go, I think most of the providers have been clear, absent guidance that would allow us to treat them as separate catch-ups, they are treated the same. I would not expect a provider to draft the S2.0 amendment any other way. Restatements are a different animal. You can draft the C4 document aggressively even without guidance and let the IRS tell you Yay/Nay.

ASC has taken the same position. Absent guidance permitting us to treat 60-63CU separate from regular CU, if the document allows for CU, the 60-63CU limits are automatically applied.

Looks very straightforward to me. You use the K-1 for ABC LLP. You don't include comp from unrelated businesses.

I agree. The startup credit references NHCEs, but the contribution credit references "employees making less than $100,000". As far as I can recall, owner-employees making less than $100,000 are not treated any different. The ACA credit of $500 has no NHCE or income restriction, and is available for all plans including one participant owner only plans.

I've run into a lot of lazy drafters lately. Reusing the same DRO over and over, often having incorrect plan names and other things left over from the previous DRO. We kick it back and they change half of the items we asked them to correct. Some will even get the order signed without fixing all the items....

I'd have to check to be sure but my gut says that an affirmative election should be good for both your examples.

It's an EZ. 2% S-Corp shareholders are treated as partners for filing purposes. It was part of PPA but didn't make it into the 5500 instructions until the 2021 5500.

Isn't that what self certification does?

As someone who has used Ilene's services MANY times, I can highly recommend them! I have worked with Ilene, Alison, Adrienne, and several others from the firm and they have always been great.

I think @jsample is referring to an "unallocated suspense account" rather than a forfeiture account. I don't recall where this is discussed, but I don't think its EPCRS. If I remember it correctly, the excess is moved to an unallocated suspense account and is not an annual addition. You then have to use the assets in the unallocated suspense account before you make any further contributions, and they are an annual addition when allocated. So from a deduction perspective, you can deduct it when allocated, but not when deposited.

When you say "group", are these unrelated employers? Or were they part of a controlled group or affiliated service group? Are ABC and/or DEF single employer plans, MEPs, or PEPs?

ASCs position (using their pre-approved C3 document) appears to be that unless further guidance provides an option to bifurcate regular catch-up and the 60-63 catch-up, the 60-63 catch-up is allowed if catch-up is allowed. Anyone know if other major providers are taking a different approach with their pre-approved C3 document?

I agree with @ratherbereading and @Bill Presson. This is way beyond what can be addressed on a message board, OP needs to engage an attorney ASAP.

Amen @Bill Presson!

Without seeing the plan document, I agree that Ascensus is probably correct (especially if its their document). That said, if the document allows for a truly discretionary match, you could make the match 0% on the first 4% deferred, and 100% on the next 2% deferred. You would need to BRF and ACP test it, but its possible.

It can be applied to new participants only, but if you limit coverage to new participants you don't get the 6 month deadline for corrective distributions.

Agreed.

This is a first for me. I'm looking at a PEP with a 12/31 PYE, but the document for one participating employer has a 6/30 PYE. Looks like the plan joined the PEP in October of 2023, so the PEP will be testing and reporting using the 12/31 PYE, but this plan is really a 6/30 PYE. I think its obvious that the document needs an amendment to align with the PEPs 12/31 PYE, but how would you address the 12/31 PEP testing and reporting, as well as the 6/30 PYE in the participating plan document?

You include both catch-ups. They could have drafted the language better, but the reason is that 414(v) is referenced in 402(g) but it is not referenced in 408(p). That's why they mention it for the simple.