CuseFan

Yes, legislators are just pulling numbers out of their backsides, the same source as for all their political commercials.

true - thanks

If you HAVE to aggregate to satisfy coverage then you must aggregate for nondiscrimination and then there are no safe harbors. If each plan has an otherwise safe harbor formula, if the DB can pass coverage by itself using average benefits, then you're OK.

Maybe as a 403(b) plan the rules are different, but what this looks like to me is that the "mandatory" employee contribution is the amount required to get the employer contribution - say if you contribute 2% or whatever the specific mandatory % then you get 8% from the employer. Anything above or below the 2% or whatever % is "voluntary". In my opinion, that make the employer contribution a match not a non-elective contribution, and subject to ACP testing, as it is contingent upon an employee salary deferral ofX%. In regard to your question, I believe they can have a 1000-hour annual requirement to receive the match (assuming that passes 410(b) coverage testing) but could not (and really need not) have such for what you/they call the mandatory piece. I have seen similar type designs in tax-exempts companies and colleges and the employer contribution is a match, with the exception being the situation where the mandatory contribution is truly that and a condition of employment, and is therefore not considered an employee deferral and so the resulting employer contribution is not considered a match. If I'm off base because school district 403(b)s are different then I defer to our experts out there who work on these plans, as I do not.

I do not think your amendment creates a new last day for credit entitlement but it did create a 401(a)(26) minimum participation issue even if you are OK on coverage and nondiscrimination by aggregating with DCP (assuming you still have same PYs and can do). You will need to provide some NHCE CB credits, either via an amendment or maybe Plan Administer makes reasonable interpretation that freeze date is the last day requirement for a credit.

agree with that, think it should be business days

I agree with all the prior comments and wholeheartedly agree with just - the requirement is to segregate from employer assets (i.e., deposit into a plan account) but amounts need not be invested/allocated within that time frame. Leaving them univested for a prolonged time may have other fiduciary concerns, but not late deposits.

Exactly, thank you.

To satisfy RMD he can commence his monthly benefit or he could, if plan allows, elect a lump sum which could either be the equivalent of 12 monthly payments or treating the LS as a DC balance. I do not think you can lump in monthly annuity payments with interest into a single installment unless the plan permits, but I'll defer to other opinions on that. 2024 is his first distribution calendar year. Regardless of how/when he commenced RMDs, unless he takes lump sum in 2024, split between RMD and a rollover, he will have a 2025 distribution calendar year RMD no matter when the plan is terminated and assets distributed. If he does aforementioned 2024 split lump sum, he'll have an IRA RMD for 2025 attributable to the 2024 rollover.

Understand that frustration, but plans are required to follow strict rules in processing QDROs, and note that the Q standing for Qualified does not occur until the Plan Administrator reviews and accepts as Qualified, meaning all the requirements to be Qualified have been satisfied. There is often much back and forth getting from a divorce decree to a Domestic Relations Order to a QDRO, and any missing requirement can delay that process. Having a QDRO-knowledgeable attorney who engages with the Plan Administrator at the start and uses the Plan's model/preferred QDRO format would have served to facilitate, but doesn't help now, and hopefully you'll never be in this position again.

Financial institutions now have very stringent rules concerning the acceptance of customers, designed to mitigate things like funding terrorists and laundering money. Sometimes a person ends up on a list, a blacklist so to speak, because of suspicious or questionable activity and failure to provide sufficient or accurate information. I'm not saying that is the reason here and that this is an unsavory person, but the comment "past history with banks" seems like just the tip of the iceberg.

You must prorate if you have a short plan year, but not for any individual's participation that is less than 12 months, that is not a short plan year. If someone enters plan 7/1/2024 and makes $345,000 from 7/1-12/31/2024, it all counts. If an existing participant terminates 6/30/2024 and made $345,000 from 1/1-6/30/2024, it all counts.

If the plan compensation (excluding gift cards) passes non-discrimination testing then you may use that as your testing compensation and gateway, but top heavy (if applicable) must be based on total compensation.

This seems logical - early DB entrants being OE and tested separately/excluded from primary test and gateway.

It seems as if the Forms and SPD have created the administrative procedures for such items not specifically contained in the document, assuming there are no other written procedures concerning this, and the question is whether the fiduciary/plan administrator reasonably interpreted those procedures in processing the claim/form as valid given all the facts and circumstances, or acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner ignoring its own administrative procedures. This looks like a situation that could be headed toward litigation, if not there already.

I don't think so, looking at the form and instructions, I don't you need to file until the final filing.

Don't think so, but also remember that neither spouse can be involved in the other's business for a control group to no longer exist. Sometimes, sponsors and/or their practitioners want there to be a CG and so create some cross-involvement to get there.

Yes, there is no control group, but if each entity had the same type of plan then the 100%/51% owner would have an aggregated 415 limit.

Agree with Austin, and would dive into service agreement with RK A to see if their position is supported or they are just being "difficult" because they lost the engagement. Of course, if all the other SDBAs have already been liquidated and maybe didn't actually have to be, that is another potential can of worms. Could that SDBA be left behind until resolved, as a couple above have alluded? It's still (or should be) in the name of the plan, would just be outside the RK B system for now. If other SDBAs get re-established with RK B then you have a case for there not being a BRF issue.

Exactly, that would be a very plausible reason for final filing to show BOY $0 and EOY $0 as is the now worthless assets. Even if it is scrutinized, nothing to see here, just move along.

Was the over deposit on maximum compensation? If not, maybe finding a way that compensation can be "adjusted" so contribution comes in at 9% or claim mistake of fact/math error? If max comp and a 9% PS was declared and this was a clerical error, then maybe refund on mistake of fact for that? Any adjustments, whether to comp or contrib (refund) will have some compliance risk.

Isn't it the limit in effect on the first day of the PY, so $245k? I see no way for it to be $265k, but may be the 2021 limit (probably not unless freeze was at 4/30/2022).

We use FTW for documents as well - was a Relius user for years (back to Corbel days) - did not like the switch at first but could not imagine going back now.

My understanding - and I thought this came up not that long ago and I opined similarly - is that you can only do that if the CG files a consolidated return, which is clearly not the case here. So for CG AB, A cannot make contributions and take deduction for B's employees on A's tax return, or vice versa, but either can contribute whatever toward A's and B's employees if AB deducts on a consolidated tax return.

They can be, but not necessarily, and such should be closely examined in the person's state of residence (bankruptcy laws). The administrative burden - continuing restatements, interim amendments, 5500 filings - and associated costs should be weighed against any real (not perceived) difference in levels of protection.