CuseFan

The 62 or NRA is statutory - but you say the plan uses 55, correct? I don't think there is anything wrong with that, but maybe I'd ask why they have it that way. What is the operational failure of which you speak? Are they cashing out after age 55? Not at all?

That 40 hours per month "rule" is with respect to suspension of benefits provisions, if the plan provides, where those working more than that can be "suspended" from getting their pension after NRA and where the plan need not provide actuarial increases. I'm not aware of any different treatment for owners or HCEs, and it would/should be in the plan if there was. You need to carefully read the document. You say no in-service even after NRA, but .... is (2) specific to a retiree who returns to work or is a simple reduction of hours enough? Just a reduction in hours does not constitute a separation/termination from service and that may be needed to trigger commencement.

These questions usually come from a checklist and are likely generic and all the same for a type of plan. Just provide the information requested - even if obvious, like meaningful benefits and a safe harbor formula (remember, compensation definition must be a SH as well). Then the auditor can check off their boxes.

The employer's portion of the MEP is considered the same as a single employer plan for coverage, nondiscrimination, 415 limits and tax deductions, yes? If so, either scenario works, I think, that is if the MEP provisions support what you need to do for profit sharing. If the CBP is PBGC-exempt remember you have combined plan deduction rules/limits to navigate.

Read the basic plan document, all relevant provisions, it should provide the answer.

Yes, control group. Yes, no advantage to having separate 401(k) and VAT plans, this can be one plan (but...) Yes, likely no future VAT because of ACP testing. If each entity is a participating employer, then her pay from each can be compensation. If for some other weird reason she wants separate plans, be wary of BRFs issues if her "SE" plan has features not in her practice 401(k).

Agreed - but even if you went 7/1 to 7/1, that second 7/1 is coincident with an entry date, so either way you slice it, it's a 7/1 entry.

Correct, you do not need to cross-test so there is no gateway requirement. I do not get involved in the mechanics or software side of this but I'm guessing you may coded some parameters incorrectly and the testing run was looking for cross-testing and gateway. I'll bet a DATAIR user on this forum can chime in and clarify.

Was this an owners only plan or were only the owners' lump sums rolled into the new plan? The new plan's document should specify treatment, which should be as a segregate account. Strategically terminated? But then rollover into a new plan of the same type? Sounds more like some stratgery.

I reiterate, if someone is missing as of plan termination distribution date then turning benefit over to PBGC avoids your concern. If someone is not missing and has a deferred annuity contract purchased and then later goes missing, that should not be of concern to the plan. As an aside, if someone is 30 years from retirement and selects a deferred annuity, then there was some serious lack of effective communication to participants during the plan termination process.

Agreed, can r/o directly to Roth IRA and since not subject to mandatory 20% tax w/h but taxable, yes, some estimated tax payment or other tax planning should have been done. Now it's just deal with the fallout and pay what's due along with any interest for being under w/h. Thankfully the 10% tax on pre-mature distribution does not apply regardless of the person's age.

Yes, must aggregate for A to pass coverage which means you must also aggregate to test nondiscrimination.

I would think the insurer would have to perform their own diligent search before doing so. If this is a concern, why not turn those missing participant benefits over to PBGC?

I have seen, and had clients in the past, that filed an extension, filed their return after the original due date and before the extended due date, claimed a deduction for their retirement plan contribution, and then used their tax refund toward their contribution deposit which was made by the extended tax return due date.

Great points Ilene. As with many questions that come through here - just because something CAN be done doesn't mean it SHOULD be done. For those with religious objections, maybe the employer suggests they donate any future distributions to charity and name as beneficiary (with spousal consent of course).

I thought the SCHI issue had been discussed before and assuming plan definition supported and did not specifically exclude that consensus (maybe?) was you inlcuded.

Regarding reasonable classification for average benefits testing - the plan is not naming names for who is eligible or not, this employee is otherwise eligible but is electing to waive coverage.

Satisfy 410(b) using the average benefits test. You will likely need to give NHCE#1 more, and that increase may be more or less than what #2 would have received.

If considered self-employed (sole prop Sched C), yes.

If plan supports and person is not employed by a participating employer within control group, they are excluded. However, if US citizen they are not statutorily excluded and must be included in coverage testing. I assume their foreign paid income would be considered, but the only implication would be for HCE determination.

With apologies to any CPAs on the forum, some have no issues with taking transactional shortcuts if you end up in the same place. Maybe the new overworked and underpaid IRS will say "meh, ok, no harm no foul, these aren't the droids we're looking for, go about your business."

No can do - as @Bri states - company contribution/check, as that is where any deduction occurs and where an IRS auditor would be looking to substantiate. Beyond that, plan sponsor and his accountant can figure out the details to make that happen.

post separation the 100% FAE can be indexed/increased, see my response above (third post)

I don't think that's clear. If you want safety, maybe ignore the statutorily excludable and apply the 6% to the rest.

Yes, assuming the plan allows.