CuseFan

If you got a delinquent filing warning letter after filing the current return in July, because those prior delinquent program-filed returns were not yet processed, your recourse is to provide proof of those filings. You should always keep copies of signed and dated paper filings, mail them certified return receipt requested, and keep all related forms, receipts, etc. together. Filings should always be made using the plan sponsor's (the business) EIN. the plan/trust ID is only used for trust level reporting such as distributions.

Agreed, and believe it's a one-way street. (And don't say but you're only going one way!)

Exactly. It is possible if the CBP document says rollovers are accepted, but it must be tracked as a segregated account (RK-wise, assets do not need to be physically segregated). It doesn't affect the benefit obligation of the CBP, so in the word of Effen:

Agreed - he is the consummate professional when dealing with these Totally Ridiculous Propositions.

1. I would think that if you are concurrently sending in 3 late returns that the first chronologically would be the first return and so the next two would leave box A blank. You could not have multiple "first" returns so I think this is the only way that makes sense. Also, I would interpret as the first plan year for which a filing is required. I do not have any direct experience with this specific issue but that is how I would handle. 2. I would still do that for added clarity, it doesn't hurt. 3. Sorry, I'm having a hard time not laughing at the presumption that if these filings are done now that they would all be processed and cleared/closed come July and the current filing due date. That may happen, so waiting might avoid having to deal with a notice. That makes sense and you haven't lost anything if you still get a notice because those prior returns are sitting on some IRS agent's desk.

Yes, saw the posting in BL - that is great news for EAs and makes total sense.

From what I've read in multiple places, IRC Section 457 does not apply to churches. Since it's 457(f) that makes amounts taxable upon vesting, I don't think you have that issue. This is a nice article albeit 20+ years old. https://www.churchlawandtax.com/stay-legal/clergy-law/nonqualified-church-retirement-plans-should-be-legally-reviewed/

All you can do is lead them to water, if they go thirsty that is their choice.

If you're asking about for the owner the answer is ZERO. Only W2 pay counts as compensation and qualifies the owner as also an employee. You also have an issue with requirement for S-corp owner/employees to take a reasonable salary.

I recall prior discussions in this forum concerning the potential for the effective date of the plan to precede the establishment of the business. I do not recall the consensus opinion, or if there was one.

Agreed - and still boggles my mind that such plans continue to have 1000 hours and last day requirements when those are superseded by gateway and testing requirements.

I find these sorts of situations very interesting and very confusing. For a radio station, yes, you need equipment to function, but is it that equipment that is income-producing? One could argue that it is advertising revenue which is a function of artistic content rather than equipment. Dentists invest tremendous amounts of capital in their equipment, but no one argues they are not a service organization, right, because it is their knowledge and skill in using such that is income-producing? Which is why code specifically says they're professional services. I'm not saying your radio station is or isn't a service organization, just that it's so darn gray/confusing that I say sometimes you need to steer them to the rules and then punt to the client, suggesting legal counsel aid in their decision, and ultimately disclaim responsibility for THEIR decision.

Maybe the thought is for future years, and that using a higher testing comp for primarily HCEs will give them more deferral room in subsequent years if some had been held back previously?

Just make sure that truly a LTPT and don't get caught any of the gotchas where they could be an otherwise excludable instead. Didn't mean to add the threat of rain on your parade, sorry. Just saying check the complete weather report before leaving the umbrella at home.

seconded

Agree with Peter. If your plan definition of comp is W2 then the excess goes into that (presuming payroll done correctly) and if the definition further excludes fringe benefits et al, it comes back out.

That is GREAT advice from CBZ and the best avenue if the plan document allows.

Which is crazy. Maybe the answer to that is to specify one permitted use for forfeitures in a plan.

No CG, no ASG so no aggregation. I'd be careful simply paying eligible employees solely from Co1 if they are providing services to both companies, especially since unrelated, and assuming they've been on payroll(s) for some time already if becoming eligible. I'd suggest consulting with qualified tax accountant before playing those games. In a MEP, I think the only aggregation is for service, but I'm sure others out there that deal with these know that for sure and anything else relevant.

You crafted your question as a testing issue, but are you now saying the plan's definition of compensation includes bonuses but deferrals were not taken from bonuses? That is an operational defect that needs to be fixed - not a 414(s) test nor ADP test issue and would not matter if either of those tests passed, you'd still have a defect needing to be fixed.

I think you do ADP testing using gross (or some other safe harbor definition of) compensation and then, if failing, correct on that basis and ignore the definition of plan compensation for such purposes.

Yes, provided Plan Section 1.28(f) provides for such employees entry into the Plan upon completion of 1000 hours in a computation period.

Possibly, but will depend on the facts. Yes, Lou is correct. An employee is an employee of the control group (denominator) and if they get a contribution from the plan (or eligible to defer) then they benefit (numerator). Coverage is likely not your issue, but rather nondiscrimination, whether the compensation definition or contributions in general (looking at total compensation). All well and good, but unless you're in the process of setting up the plan now, what the owners want may not matter for any PY in the books because it all depends on what the plan document says, do not ignore what the plan says.

Yes to fixing that new employee in question. Ok to amend to exclude the less than 20 hrs/wk population under the universal availability rules, right? But have to deal with the LTPT rules for those folks, yes?

From the regs. Refinancing does not qualify as a principal residence loan. Prior Q&A also states requirement that loan is used to acquire the principal residence. Q–8: Can a refinancing qualify as a principal residence plan loan? A–8: (a) Refinancings. In general, no, a refinancing cannot qualify as a principal residence plan loan. However, a loan from a qualified employer plan used to repay a loan from a third party will qualify as a principal residence plan loan if the plan loan qualifies as a principal residence plan loan without regard to the loan from the third party. (b) Example. The following example illustrates the rules in paragraph (a) of this Q&A–8 and is based upon the assumptions described in the introductory text of this section: Example. (i) On July 1, 2003, a participant requests a $50,000 plan loan to be repaid in level monthly installments over 15 years. On August 1, 2003, the participant acquires a principal residence and pays a portion of the purchase price with a $50,000 bank loan. On September 1, 2003, the plan loans $50,000 to the participant, which the participant uses to pay the bank loan. (ii) Because the plan loan satisfies the requirements to qualify as a principal residence plan loan (taking into account the tracing rules of section 163(h)(3)(B)), the plan loan qualifies for the exception in section 72(p)(2)(B)(ii).