CuseFan

Bigger picture questions: Why in this day and age would a plan have a 10% deferral limit? Was this an HCE? If not, could plan be amended retroactively to allow for that extra 2% deferral?

If the custodian of the current brokerage account also handles IRAs, and as @Peter Gulia said if the document allows (if it doesn't you can amend), then you may be able to do in-kind distribution by simple transfer of the account from plan to IRA. Even so, a market value of the distribution and rollover will need to be determined and reported on a 1099R.

Yes, if someone gets employer contributions in a year that are equal to their 415(c) limit of the lesser of 100% of pay or $72,000, then any and all deferrals would be deemed catch-up contributions. In your example, the person could actually have had compensation of $72,000, an employer contribution of $72,000, and $8,000 in catch-up contributions.

Hoping that Mike Johnson doesn't see his shadow and give us 6 weeks of government shutdown!

Those rules are very particular, and "I thought I could deduct but my accountant told me no" (or some other facsimile) I don't think qualifies as a mistake of fact. CB contributions - minimum required and maximum deductible - should have been calculated by a knowledgeable actuary. Following bad advice, ignoring good advice, or not getting advice is not a mistake of fact. Mistake of fact is like having the actuarial calculations based on materially incorrect data such that the contribution range is materially incorrect. Maybe that is the case here, but you don't provide details. If so, and a refund was requested from the trustee within a year of the contribution then there could be actionable cause, in which case I'd recommend lawyering up and following through on the litigation threat as it seems the seller has been ghosted. Note the amount available for return is limited to the excess over what could have been contributed had the mistake leading to the error not occurred. Disallowance of deduction is specific to IRS action and you don't mention that as a relevant event here.

Absolutely perfect!

They are likely a control group so one plan with each LLC adopting should be fine. Even if not a CG they could do that as a multiple employer plan. However, if the desire is to use a vendor's solo-k product, need to make sure it accommodates whatever structure/LLC relationship you have.

Ordinarily, the 5-year rule is the 12/31 of the year containing the 5th anniversary of the participant's death. If death was x/x/2020 then 5th anniversary is x/x/2025 and entire benefit should have been distributed by 12/31/2025. However, and this comes from the IRS website where you can essentially treat 2020 as if it never existed. The excerpt below says inherited IRAs but earlier language also refers to retirement plans and I can't see them saying 2020 disappears only for IRAs. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/coronavirus-relief-for-retirement-plans-and-iras Distributions from inherited IRAs are not required in 2020. If you were required to take a distribution within 5 years following the year of the account holder’s death, 2020 does not count toward the 5 years. So, you would essentially have six years, instead of five, to distribute the inherited IRA. Also, if the account holder died in 2019, you would normally be required to begin taking distributions by the end of 2020 to be able to take distributions over your lifetime. Since 2020 does not count, you have until the end of 2021 to begin taking distributions over your lifetime.

You've got it. Forget the CG and just think 2 HCEs and 2 NHCEs where you cover 1 of each. Yes, if the covered NHCE leaves then you would need to add the other ER and its NHCE.

That is my understanding.

I do not think you can formally state two groups, those employed 2/15/PY+1 and those not, because a person's grouping is not determinable by PYE. Draw a parallel to changing an HCE top-paid group election after PYE, where the result changes a person's status under the plan, which is impermissible. Using individual allocation groups in the document but in practice determining two allocation groups by your desired methodology is the best way to accomplish what they want IMHO and I think that of most others. If said 2/15 fell on a weekend or holiday and/or for whatever reason the plan sponsor wanted to accelerate or delay that date, individual groups compared to hardcoding, even if such was permissible, makes administration accommodating. Just because the document allows for flexibility doesn't mean it needs to be used. Finally, you mention a parent and a lot of subsidiaries all with their own plans with separate RKs and independent testing. Is no one concerned about testing in consideration of the control group?

Reasoning? If they want so they can invest in whatever they want versus being limited to the same fund lineup, then you have a BRF discrimination issue.

Also agree with @justanotheradmin and @Bill Presson. Assuming no coverage and nondiscrimination concerns, I would use the everyone in their own group document provision and then utilize that 2/15 methodology for allocation determinations. What you lose in that is the ability to statutorily exclude from testing those who terminate during the plan year with 500 or fewer hours. I do not think you could write the 2/15 of the following year into the document as your allocation entitlement would not be determinable by the plan year end. I think someone in this forum asked this same question (maybe with different date) within the last year or two, if memory serves.

Union covered employees (if retirement subject to GFB) and non-union employees are subject to mandatory disaggregation. Furthermore, if you have a plan covering employees in different unions, I believe that each union represented constitutes its own disaggregated "plan" for coverage and nondiscrimination. As @ESOP Guy states, be sure to check the plan documents for proper inclusion or exclusion of union covered employees.

Agree with @David D - including the 1099 situation not appearing correct unless something else going on. Are the owners each single member LLCs that own the company and company then pays the LLCs via 1099s. Even so, the LLCs would be either incorporated (C or S) or not (sole prop) and pay their owners via W2 or K1, respectively. Then (I think) the LLCs are disregarded entities and their earned income should count for 401k plan. If that's not the case then that whole 1099 situation is wrong IMHO - but I'm not an accountant.