CuseFan

Lou and Peter are spot on. Discretion for consistent and reasonable interpretation of vague plan provisions, not for exceptions. Also, a vague provision does not give carte blanche on interpreting any way the PA desires, it must still be reasonable. I've read many lawsuit summaries where the PA was sued alleging its interpretation was arbitrary and capricious (legal term for willy nilly).

If working <40 hours a month the SoB would not apply anyway. The definitive answer lies in the group annuity contract placed with the insurer that is now providing the monthly annuity benefits. I do not know if suspension of benefits provisions must be included in those contracts, but would think most/all insurers might want those administrative complexities taken out. If the plan termination process has not yet progressed to that stage you are still bound to follow the plan document.

I'm assuming these were/are all DC plans, because DB plans must use actuarial value of assets (usually FMV) for determining funded status and minimum required contributions.

I think both have to claim and satisfy QSLOB and it certainly doesn't pass the smell test when you have one entity providing service to the entire control group - you can't have CG AB where A is a separate line but B is not.

Yes, read the plan document. Any allocation of excess, if permitted by the plan, must be nondiscriminatory. The question on the terminated participant is whether such employee was considered benefiting for 2024 or is a statutory exclusion for 2024 - if the person did not accrue a benefit in 2024 because they terminated and failed to complete an hours requirement in the plan AND also worked 500 or fewer hours. If you must include the employee in testing, you may need to give some of the excess. Also, be wary of minimum participation, if the employee didn't get a 2024 accrual because <1000 hours but can't be excluded because >500 hours, you'll need to give a benefit.

Currently, yes, but you ultimately need a plan amendment to change the cash out threshold from $5,000 to $7,000 (and with a 1/1/2024 effective date) to do this - it's not an automatic the law says we must, it's an option the law allows the plan to say.

Lou is correct - and to clarify the amendment must be adopted by 12/31/2026 (extended from 12/31/2025) or the plan's termination if earlier.

A lot of pension plans had a 20 1/2, 6 months, single entry date design so they could deal with (and value) new entrants all at once. However, I thought that was a straight 6-month elapsed time requirement and you could not attach any hours requirement. Say your June 2024 hire only worked 490 hours. You don't put them in at 1/1/2025, you look at 2025 hours for YOS and possible entry 1/1/2026? That makes me a little nervous, interested if others are fine with that. What is that subsequent YOS requirement, 500 hours, 1000 hours? If 1000, that makes me more nervous.

Why would an advisor be responsible to 1099s unless they/their firm contracted to provide that service? It is a trustee or PA function. Regardless, they created an operational defect if not a fiduciary breach.

I would defer to the company's accountant, but if the consolidated company files a consolidated tax return, then any or all companies within the control group can contribute whatever amounts. However, if A & B file separate tax returns I believe each must contribute and deduct their respective amounts. At least that is my recollection, but again, a qualified tax accountant for the company(ies) should be able to answer definitively.

You don't know how hard it is to resist ......

Also, be careful of this. If dad has any exercisable option on stock owned by son he is deemed to own that as well. (e)Constructive ownership (1)Options If any person has an option to acquire stock, such stock shall be considered as owned by such person. For purposes of this paragraph, an option to acquire such an option, and each one of a series of such options, shall be considered as an option to acquire such stock.

I found the prior discussion and (1) it was related to tax returns and the deductibility of a contribution made by an extended due date on a return filed by the original due date, and (2) there was a revenue ruling or PLR cited where the deduction was allowed and so the extension was not invalidated. So my memory of the question was correct, or at least related, my recollection of the resolution was not - therefore, I think there is not issue following that course of action regarding 5500 extensions, filings and SAR timing.

Must be these were just released as a colleague forwarded one received by one of his clients. I circulated to our group and another colleague suggested (tongue in cheek) that maybe everyone will respond how much of a burden these are and then IRS/DOL in their infinite wisdom will significantly shorten and simplify these filings. Then after much laughter I responded "we both know the odds of that happening!"

I can certainly get behind that option as well.

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I seem to recall much discussion in this forum if an extension is considered valid when a filing is ultimately made by the original due date.

Personally, I think others will feel differently, I would consider that 1/2/2024 R/O for December 2023 dividend as a payable at 12/31/2023 and file a final return for 2023 showing zero assets.

You'd have an extremely low actuarially reduced DB maximum benefit, and to what point? From my perspective you are dealing with a self-employed sole proprietor whose business is not just boxing but his persona/personality. The likes of Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Shaq, George Foreman (the original, not any of the multitude sons) - any major sports (or other industry) celebrity who developed a personal brand - has self-employment income long after their playing days are over. So Joe Boxer might retire from competitive boxing at age 35, but when does he really retire from being Joe Boxer the celebrity?

Agree - testing one plan use NRA as testing age. When testing two or more plans use the latest NRA applied uniformly as the testing age. Have not seen anywhere that allows SSRA.

If there is no plan restriction there is no statutory issue either, assuming all the proper tax reporting/withholding is happening. A pension plan can commence in-service monthly payments as early as age 59 1/2, so what's the big deal here? Just because something creates an administrative headache and isn't the most efficient utilization of one's account doesn't mean there is a statutory issue.

I think you'd have a hard time justifying anything that is paid to the employee in cash for services as a fringe benefit. If you try to exclude anything that is not part of regular wages then that takes you down the rabbit hole of things like overtime, shift differentials, bonuses, etc. Cash-like items such as gift cards is probably as far as I would push that envelope. If you're willing to test rather than lump in with all safe harbor exclusions then you can pick and choose what to exclude. When I think of fringe benefits it's non-cash items like car usage, gym or country club membership, etc.

What they all said (especially the lawyer part) and you may still have the ability to get a domestic relations order for a marital share/survivor benefit.

No, you only need to register a plan once. New plans of the same employer require registration but not amendments/restatements of existing plans. At least that is my understanding.

A company's contributions to a retirement plan can come from either it's current profits or retained earnings. However, the company's accountant should be consulted with respect to tax deductions, if they would be limited to current profits, or provide any lookback or carry forward opportunity. I know there used to be very limited lookback deductibility but maybe not any more. Contributions not currently deductible can be deducted in the next year but need to take care in not depositing non-deductible amounts in a current year. Contributions and deductions will also be limited by the 415 limits and eligible payroll. If he's an architect with few or no employees then a CBP would be PBGC-exempt and any DCP would have to be limited to 6% or eligible payroll employer contribution or be subject to a 31% of payroll combined deduction. In those instances, including a 401(k) provision adds opportunity for another $30k. I assume C-corp tax status and wanting to avoid the double taxation on paying out those retained earnings? There will eventually be tax again on those amounts when ultimately distributed from their final tax-deferred resting place, whether a qualified plan or subsequent rollover IRA.

I'm confused somewhat because you seem to be asking what "can" be done when all the relevant dates in your conundrum have passed. If paperwork for 5/1 commencement was timely sent, returned and benefits commenced, the one day of rehiring did not rise to the level requiring suspension of benefits (assume that is where you were going with the 40 hours). If he has not yet returned forms and commenced then does this matter? Maybe, but most likely not - you mention "rolling out" which is only available if if a lump sum is paid, and again, since we're in July, whether he retired/terminated 4/22 or 5/18 doesn't matter for a lump sum (unless it also affects the actual calculation of the benefit).