RatherBeGolfing

And you can still recover against a non-fiduciary service provider who is at fault. The good ones will own their mistakes and the bad ones, like you say, aren't in business long. But then again, it wasn't too long ago a "fiduciary" service provider had their offices raided and their files seized as part of a fraud and embezzlement case...

This 100%.

If the plan allowed 2 loans, a new loan could be issued for $20k You have plenty of room on the 50% of balance side so your issue is going to be the $50k limit. With highest outstanding loan in last 12 months of $30k, you could do a new loan for $20k

Ok, not much you can do at that point.

Is there a possibility to refinance the loan?

The most s/he can borrow is $20k due to $50k/12 month limit. If s/he has $20k to repay the current loan, the new loan would simply replace $20k used to repay the old loan.

I have seen plenty of #1 and #2. I see #3 more as a fall back when they don't get any new elections with #1. They would basically move the cash over and default it into TD funds as the DIA. I personally don't care for mapping (#2), I prefer that the adviser put the work in and come up with the best and most appropriate lineup on the new platform rather than trying to squeeze the old platform into the new platform. Now throw in the twist of converting SDBAs and you can have even more "fun"...

They added line 4c to the 2017 forms for plan name changes

DFVC is most likely still an option. The $15,000 proposed penalty letter is their way of funneling people to the DFVC. They really never let you off the hook anymore though, I had a case where the clients CPA/TPA had all the documents signed and ready to file a final 5500 when he suddenly died. The client didn't even find out he was dead until they tried to get an explanation for the penalty notice. The IRS just said the DFVC is there for a reason, pick your poison of the $750 user fee or the proposed penalty.

I'm not sure what would make the AA an "optional" document to provide... Does it somehow not relate to the establishment or operation of the plan? ERISA §104(b)(4)

For a CG it would be Section 1563 attribution which would be limited to/from an adult child.

Well if it is a successor plan you really want it to be a transfer not a distribution. I know the end result is that the assets end up in the same place but it should be transferred not rolled over. As for potential issues, if it is transferred over as a successor plan, the assets (should) retain their source characteristics like withdrawal restrictions on deferrals, right? But a rolled over amount has already been "distributed" from its original plan and are now rollover assets that do not carry the same restrictions. If assets that "roll over" incorrectly are then distributed before age 59 1/2, you have a problem. At least that is how I am looking at it.

I assume you are talking about the $250,000 limit? If so, that is the combined value so it would mean you have to file for both if the combined assets exceed $250,000. From the 5500-EZ instructions (my emphasis) Talk to Vanguard, they will have required paperwork to terminate the plan. You also need to file a final Form 5500-EZ and Forms 1096/1099/945 depending on how you distribute the assets (Make sure to ask Vanguard if they will do this for you) Just as an FYI, Vanguard also has a brokerage option that may work for you, I have some clients who love them. I'm not sure if they can be used as part of their one participant plans though. I hope that helps.

Unfortunately, this is almost entirely cost related. Mega companies like ADP and others offer "low cost" plans staffed by people with zero experience and education in qualified plans. What you are facing is not an uncommon result. When you race to the bottom on fees, you end up at the bottom for quality.

Ok. Since it is 401(k) only, your ADP test will probably limit the amount of deferrals your owner can make. If the owners deferrals are going to be restricted anyways, how about restricting the owners deferrals in the document to something like $100? Tthis would trigger catch-up at $101. The owner could defer the full $6100, with only $100 subject to ADP testing. This also works in your favor for top heavy because catch-up contributions are not included when you determine highest contribution rate for the top heavy minimum (but it is included when calculating 60% for TH determination). So even if you had to make a TH contribution, it would be really small because it is determined only using the $100.

I very rarely suggest calling the DOL because it is almost always avoidable , but this may be one of those instances where it is appropriate. The way they are operating the plan effectively restricts catch-up contributions to highly compensated participants who can hit the $18,000 limit while still restricted to 15% of pay per payroll. That is just wrong and needs to be fixed. If you are getting nowhere with them, call the DOL. When they get a participant complaint, they have to look into it. When the DOL comes knocking, things like this will get fixed real quick.

But if they do allow catch-up deferrals, catch-up should kick in at the 15% maximum as well as the $18,000 limit.

Don't forget "encouraging" plan sponsors to make house calls in order to locate missing participants, that is one of my new favorites

There are no special rules for a solo 401(k), it is just a marketing term for a one participant plan. The reporting is a little different but the "rules" are the same. With this kind of setup, I would assume that ADP testing would be an issue as well, not just possible TH issues? Is the owner/principal catch-up eligible?

Your document most likely covers it (either by telling you how you must do it or by giving the admin discretion), but it may not be where you think it should be. In my document, the ordering rule is not in the RMD section, it is in a section that deals with timing and form of distributions.

Since the participants have an option of an SDBA or a pooled managed account, could the pooled account option itself be considered a DIA? I would be tempted to play it safe and treat it like a DIA and issue quarterly statements to the participants in the pooled account. The value wouldn't change until after the annual valuation of the pooled assets, so it would be pretty simple to take care of.

EZ is for owner/spouse or partners only. Is the son a partner? If the son is not a partner, the plan cannot file an EZ or use the filing exemption.

I don't see any other way around it, especially with the DOL scrutinizing attempts (or lack thereof) to locate missing participants.

We did a normal conversion, which means we converted the data needed (2014 in our case) in order to do complete admin in in our first post conversion year (2015). For us, this meant converting balances, years of service, hire/fire/rehire dates, relevant data for any lookback periods, etc. We also have detailed electronic files on our clients (present and past) that can be used if we need to access historical data that is not in FTW. With plans going back several decades, it just isn't reasonable to "rebuild" past years in a software when you can look it up fairly easily. The conversion is not that complicated, but it is time consuming. It really helps if you know your way around macros in excel as this will significantly reduce the time spent on manipulating the data for conversion.

100% agree. Recreating all past plan years for all plans is just not realistic. What you CAN do is is add certain historical data like compensation, contributions, distributions, etc on a year by year basis. You can upload that data separately from your conversion data using simple csv worksheets. The trick is going to be whether you can export the data in a user friendly format from your current provider