RatherBeGolfing

I have had CPAs try that in the past, but it is plan comp. I always give them the EOB explanation and they back off. EOB current online edition CHAPTER 1A: IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS -PART I - Compensation - Part A - Item 1.g.

New comp doesn't mean you HAVE to cross test. Allocate based on integration at TWB and test on based on allocation rates rather than cross test.

I agree with Belgarath, the RMD would not trigger a distribution of the remainder of the account even if the document has a "single lumpsum" option only. I think that is a reasonable interpretation of most plan documents and does not need a special provision. Maybe a better way to look at it is that a rollover eligible distribution triggers the "single lumpsum only" requirement?

We always recommend lumpsum only, and have maybe one or two odd plans that wanted to allow periodic payments but it is never utilized. The more you can do to eliminate the opportunity for mistakes the better.

Why would the plan be insured under the TPAs E&O? Its there to protect the TPA against claims, not the plan...

Again, you are ignoring the $10,000 you received tax free as a loan...

Doesn't your scenario leave out the $10,000 loan that you didn't pay taxes on? I have $0 so I take a loan of $10,000 I now have $10,000 I receive income of $50,000 that I pay taxes on I now have $60,000, but I only paid taxes on $50,000 I repay the $10,000 loan with $100 interest I now have $49,900 and I paid taxes on $50,000 When I withdraw that $10,100, I will be taxed twice on $100, and once on $10,000

They count. Just like a participant who used to be eligible but is now excluded counts as a participant if there is an account balance. I can't give you a cite but I know that Janice's book used to point out that such a participant is not included as an active participant in the line by line section. Maybe that is what you remember?

I agree with Mike. They do NOT count for testing until they meet eligibility. The DO count as a participant for 5500 purposes (but not as an active participant)

You are assuming that there is enough comp to max out using just profit sharing, that is often not the case. For many of these small companies, you don't have enough comp to get to $56K as a profit sharing contribution, but you can get to $38K and max out at $56K with the $18K deferral.

Oh I agree with you, I just didn't see the rush in getting an EZ filed now.

Or just wait until the 2018 EZ is released?

They did, ASPPA replaced it with an "ask the experts" panel.

And miss out on discussions like "The Rocky Mountain MEP" from last year? Trademark pending btw...

Thanks ETA!

Thanks CuseFan. Neither document will automatically cover the employees of the other company of the controlled group. I don't know why I was second guessing myself this morning, so thank you for clarifying it for me.

Here is my issue for 2019: You have 130 participant in the plan as of 12/31/2018. As of 1/1/2019, 60 of them are no longer eligible for 001, but are eligible for 002. How many account balances do you have on 1/1/2019 for 001? Lets assume that all 130 have an account balance. Do the 60 participants who are now no longer eligible for 001 still have their account balance in 001 as of 01/01/2019? If so, they are still a participants in 001, and participant AND active participant in 002. Audit would still be required for 2019. If you have participants without a balance, you could end up with less than 100 in 001 as of 1/1/2019.

I have had this argument with the IRS as well, but I have always prevailed after insisting that the BOY has to be established on its own merits, and that unless they can show me a rule or reg saying otherwise, I would like to get it reviewed by someone higher up than the person I am dealing with.

A client is the majority owner of Company A and a minority owner of Company B. He will acquire majority ownership of Company B in January of 2019. The ownership will be enough to establish an A+B controlled group. Company A maintains a small plan with a safe harbor match and A21+1YOS for eligibility, Company B maintains a large (audited) plan with a non safe harbor match and A21+3MOS for eligibility. We are working on a new plan design to fit the needs of both A and B, but we don't have a clear solution yet. Neither company has adopted the plan of the other company. B's plan would probably pass coverage no problem with A's employees not benefiting, but A would fail miserably. We can rely on the transition rule until we have a solution and then make the solution effective 1/1/2020 right?

As @Bird pointed out earlier, the "solo k" IS a regular 401(k) plan. Unfortunately, those who market 401(k) plans as "solo" or "uni" or whatever (k), often use a plan document that has been severely limited because the promoter of the "solo" is not able or unwilling to deal with plans when there are people other than owners, spouses, or partners involved. Whether your particular 401(k) plan document must be amended depends on whether the document provider designed it in such a way that an amendment is needed. If the question is "can you have a one-participant plan and a cash balance plan"? then the answer is yes. But do you really need a CB plan? Unless you have a partner only plan you only have to deal with Owner and maybe spouse, a regular DB plan should be all you need and is probably easier...

I havent used relius in the last 5-6 years, but if it is a VS document I can almost guarantee that there is a place where the short plan year is supposed to be indicated while drafting the document. If there really is no reference to a short plan year, I wonder if that part was simply missed while drafting the document. You cant have a calendar year plan effective 10/1/18 without a short plan year. Maybe someone who uses relius FIS now can weigh in on the document? Also, best bet is to log an incident (or whatever the process is now) and ask relius FIS

Is it actually an individually designed plan or is it a volume submitter in IDP format? Is there any reference to a short plan year?

The document has to define the plan and limitation year as a 12 month period. A short plan year would be an exception so the document would have additional language to indicate a specific short plan year. If the plan is effective 10/1/2018, I would expect the document to also state a short plan year of 10/1/2018-12/31/2018.

That is one of the many issues yes.

I agree with John, MoJo, and others above. I would not encourage a client to file an incomplete annual return. You are simply better off filing a complete annual return late and paying the user fee for doing so. As a practitioner, you have to consider the liability you are exposing the client (and yourself) to by recommending that they file an incomplete return because you expect to get another 45 days to fix it, rather than paying a small user fee to do it properly.