RatherBeGolfing

Yes. the QNEC triggers gateway even if participant does not qualify for the PS.

My guess is that the transactions are ok (recorded properly) but the reporting is horrible. The alternative is that this RK has bad or no internal controls in its system and treats forfeiture as a earnings, which I really doubt. Bad reporting isn't that uncommon though this seems to be an extreme case. I think this is one of those situations where you roll up your sleeves and really dig into what you have and try to pull it apart and piece together your own "report". There will be times when you will need to go to the former RK for clarification on a transaction, but they should be able to provide that without the need for a new report and hourly charges.

Should be treated the same as terminated and paid out participant. I believe the 5500 Preparer's Manual had a note about terminating plans where assets transferred to another plan, saying that an SAR would be prudent in that case, but no SAR requirement for a terminated plan with no assets left. I have an older copy of it somewhere but an office move can make anything disappear

A former local competitor of ours covered both employees and families 100%, at least pre-ACA. They were pretty generous with other benefits as well. Their reasoning was pretty simple, take care of your employees and they will take care of you. They had very little turnover until they got acquired by one of the national firms. I don't think any of the employees were left after two years.

Eligible without an account balance is required to receive the SAR, no question about that. What isn't 100% clear is whether a terminated participant who has been paid out before the end of the plan year is required to receive the SAR. Standard practice seems to be term with no balance at the end of the year does not get an SAR, but it sort of depends on where you draw the line. The regs just say participant and beneficiary. Many interpret that as "at the end of the year" rather than "at any point during the plan year". I know Janice Wegesin's 5500 Preparer's Manual agreed with the former but I don't think it had a direct citation. Absent anything directly on point, I think either interpretation is reasonable.

Well we have established that its legal. My comment was in regards to the "fairness" aspect

I think its distinguishable. The spouse and children are tacked on to the employees coverage under a plan chosen by the employer where rates have been established. I see that as different from "employer pays X's child's tuition". To me, the benefit is what is available to you, not what the company paid for it. So in this instance, what is offered to OP is the same as what is offered to co-worker, 100% paid coverage for employee and spouse/children if applicable. That is the benefit. That it costs the employer more for co-worker is not unfair to OP because OP is not harmed by what the employer pays for co-workers coverage. OP would also not benefit more if the employer decided to only cover employees. The employer would probably put the "cost savings" to use somewhere else or maybe it would just end up in the pocket of the owner. What is up for debate is whether its fair for co-worker to be able to cover a spouse while OP couldn't opt to cover a non-married partner. Co-worker could meet a spouse and get married on the spot and spouse would be eligible, while OP could have a 10 year partner that isn't covered. I'm not arguing that the public policy itself is fair.

I agree, it's in the eye of the beholder. If OP lost out on something because of the additional cost for co-worker, I would agree that it's at least arguably unfair. But its not like the employer would pay their widget testers more if the benefit cost went down, that excess would go elsewhere. So what the company pays for co-workers insurance does not harm OP. OP could also cover spouse and children at 100% paid by the employer, so the benefit offered is identical. Lets switch it to retirement benefits instead. OP and CW both receive contributions to a pension plan. Their benefit is identical, $1000 a month payable at age 65. OP is slightly younger than CW so the employer cost for CW is higher. Is that unfair to OP? I'll agree to disagree, but to me, employer cost and employee compensation are apples and oranges.

I think it's pretty unreasonable. The benefit is identical (100% of health ins to employee and spouse/children). The fact that OP does not have a spouse or children to cover does not make the benefit unfair. The employers cost for that benefit is an entirely separate issue.

Absolutely, but VCP for a simple loan fix just adds to the VCP backup.

Looks like we still need to keep the pressure on the DOL...

Rev. Proc. 2019-19

Expanded Self Correction Program - EPCRS Rev. Proc. 2019-19 Only glanced at it, but early Christmas on Easter from the IRS??

§ 2520.104b-10(a) ...shall furnish annually to each participant of such plan and to each beneficiary receiving benefits under such plan... If there is no balance, there is no participant or beneficiary. I don't have a copy of the 5500 preparer's manual anymore, but I know that one of the prior editions said that there was no SAR requirement for a terminee who was paid before the end of the plan year. 12/31/2018 plan year Participant paid out 12/30/18 - no 2018 SAR required(12/31/18 is a toss up for me) Participant paid out 1/1/2019 - 2018 SAR required.

Derrin has also written on the topic in "Who's the Employer" Q&A 100: Illegal Aliens As Employees Q&A 205: Illegal Aliens and the Supreme Court

I think this is rare unless the CPA is also doing the qualified plan. Its usually a back and forth between the CPA and the person doing the benefit calculation. They lean on us pretty heavily when the partners and sole props are pushing for their returns. Some CPAs are more in tune than others and know what we need each year, while we have to drag it out of others line by line. Far too many accountants/CPAs don't even have a firm grasp of what compensation can actually be used for plan purposes to begin with, which is scary enough on its own.

Id say early 2000's since it talks about what is new since EGTRRA became effective. Some of the examples use the 25% and this one uses the 15% so it was probably an old example that wasn't updated. They are inconsistent, but Pub 560 also feels incomplete. It talks about all employees in one section, and then completely ignores other employees in the next. There should be some kind of mention or caution in this section regarding what happens to those other employees. With all the plan audits out there, I would think that there would be more discussion about this if it really was that controversial.

I deal mostly with DC, so unless there are additional rules that apply to DB, I agree with ABC. Why the need to restate D though? It would be completely paid out before the end of the RAP, so it would need to be updated but not restated.

Based on that language an extra $20 a week does not sound unreasonable to me.

Check the loan policy/procedures for prepayment language. Some say no prepayment, some say only full prepayment, some say partial prepayment allowed.

I can see the merit of both arguments, but I don't think you can prove or disprove either argument based on the sources in this discussion. I have sat through many presentations and the like on earned income and contributions, and I can't remember any of them arguing for the limited position. I did find some old IRS EP training material on deductions that is somewhat interesting. Full Document The relevant section can be found on page 29. In example 2, the reference to the allocation is simply "according to the plans allocation formula". I would expect some kind of caution or mention of limiting the allocation to the sole proprietor if that was the position of the IRS.

Its up to the client, but I would still recommend filing VFCP. My view on this is pretty simple. If the amount involved and the excise tax is so low that its an argument for not going through VFCP, the failures are usually so isolated and simple that it inst going to be that difficult or time consuming to go through VFCP. If it isn't simple and isolated, then you are probably talking about many failures with very small amounts. If you have that many failures, your focus shouldn't be the small amounts involved.

The EOB section above (Ch 7 - Section XVI - Part H - Item 1) is not the only relevant discussion in Chapter 7. I think Item 11 of that same Part H gives a better analysis.

The argument is that without an enforceable agreement to repay the loan, the participant can cease loan payments for any reason. If the participant is not required to make loan payments, it is no longer a loan, it is a distribution. If the participant is not eligible for a distribution, there has been a failure to follow plan terms which is a problem for the plan. The counter argument is that simply defaulting on the loan, even if it is at the request of the participant, does not invalidate the the original loan transaction. That said, it would still be a distribution rather than a loan if the participant never intended to pay back the loan.

I assume it would be a great outcome, especially if you submit many simple matters :)