CuseFan

I think you need to get new elections, there is no basis for defaulting to an election made under a plan of another employer that was terminated before it became part of the acquiring company. If they wanted to do something like that, it should have been discussed and determined during due diligence, and could easily have been accomplished by simply merging the acquired company's plan into the acquirer's plan. Why was that not considered? Also, and I could very well be wrong, but I don't think you're prohibited from terminating a 401(k) plan in this instance, it's just that the plan termination is not a distributable event and you must transfer funds to the successor plan. If they were worried about going to employees for new elections, wanting to treat as the same plan for them, then merging or terminating and transferring certainly is consistent with that philosophy. Regardless, those horses are already out of the barn and you need to give them all new saddles (deferral elections). IMHO

One (not me) might take the SCOTUS decision and argue personhood and apply that reasoning, or maybe argue the laws of their state grant that right, I'm sure someone with a lawyer who wants a lot of national publicity will venture down that rabbit hole at some point. We're already seeing pregnant women challenging tickets for using HOV lanes on that basis, just another can of worms. It's getting to be a crazy new world.

I think PW, as a 401(a) amount, is treated like a discretionary PS and negates any SH TH exemption. This seems a very odd TH situation, do you have a lot of Key EEs and/or they are getting sizeable PW? Providing TH likely means contributing only for non-Key, non-PW who are not contributing (enough) then, right?

Agreed, and unfortunately happens too frequently.

Exactly, refer to service agreement, stating that in accordance with whatever section(s) or paragraph(s) thereof you are providing the required notice that you are terminating or resigning from the engagement (again, whatever wording your SA used) effective a specific date. If you have any outstanding deliverables for which you've been contracted and paid, or if there are any outstanding invoices for work already delivered, you can address those situations as well. You need not state a reason, but could say "we have made a business decision..." or something to that effect as the lead in. You never like to do it but sometimes it is better to cut and run. Good luck.

If the pizza shop was not covered, then I think you are PBGC-exempt. If only the pizza shop covered, then I think clearly not PBGC-exempt (but this wouldn't make sense for doctor/owner as (s)he probably gets little or no earned income from that). If both entities are covered, I would guess not PBGC-exempt. If that is the goal, maybe make the pizza shop the sponsor and the medical practice a participating affiliated employer?

That is what we like to see as well.

Wishing you all a safe, happy, relaxing and enjoyable Labor Day holiday weekend, however you choose to celebrate!

I would agree with that statement, but.... would strongly recommend this more sooner than later to make crystal clear, and possibly name a contingent to his nephew.

Agree 5558 is the best option for extensions, especially since it often adds a month versus the tax return extension. Since return due dates are tied to year-end (fiscal and/or plan) I would think having the same year-end would suffice rather than requiring the entire plan and fiscal years to be identical, but I do not know that for certain.

Bri is correct - there are two pieces in play here: (1) does the plan provide for mandatory cash-outs (a) under $5,000, (b) under $1,000, or (c) not at all; and (2) if (1)(a) then the document must have the default IRA rollover provision for distributions between $1,000 and $5,000, and could allow for distributions less than $1,000.

Nationwide RK must be run by tree-killing climate change deniers!

There should not be withholding, and any withholding would have to be accomplished via a distribution, right? And based on the person's age that would be an impermissible in-service distribution.

A plan sponsor properly advised and serious/responsible about compliance would have kept signed and dated copies and/or certified mail return receipts (IMHO).

You are correct, no CG, but make sure it's also not an ASG before designing separate plans.

As a transfer of same money types with same vesting and, unless a new election is made or funds are different, the same investment mix.

1. I'm entirely not sure about ASG but I think you're right. 2. Yes, plan 1 would be a multiple employer plan. 3. Correct, you could permissively aggregate except for Company A2 which is not part of CG. 4. I'm not a fan of the strategy but know people in this forum who see it or do it all the time. I think a detailed cost/benefit analysis should be done in terms the audit cost savings (or simply the overall cost of administering one "large" plan) versus the (total) cost of maintaining two separate plans. Also, in the restaurant industry there is often high turnover, so each plan would need to properly manage the timing of paying out vested terminations to avoid future participant count surprises.

If the document doesn't say that then the plan sponsor has a bigger problem.

The documents will govern ongoing eligibility, that is, for which plan is the person an eligible employee. There is no basis for a distributable event, so a trustee to trustee transfer of the existing plan account is the only way to move money - but both plan documents should have provisions to support that action in the event of a participant relocation/transfer. Unless this was a frequent occurrence I do not see a problem in doing this, provided the plan documents support.

Not sure about DCP language, but in DBPs you generally cannot change your benefit election after your "annuity starting date".

https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/international-issues-affecting-retirement-plans Here's some more info from IRS. Having a dual qualified plan to accommodate one person is not likely very cost efficient and unlike IRS, Hacienda requires submission for approval of future amendments. Although counterintuitive, it might actually be better to have a separate PR 1165 plan on the island. I don't know all the ins and outs but we have a dedicated PR RK unit, PR trust company, and PR pre-approved plan and I can put you in touch with a knowledgeable person who could discuss pros/cons of a dual qualified plan versus separate plans.

If the provisions are required rather than optional then do the amendment - it matters not if someone actually have taken advantage of it.

Isn't this the type of situation where we need to ask if there are any minor children? And can't remember if it mattered if they are in a community property state. If/when new pension legislation gets signed that could all be moot anyway, so she may be good to go in 2023 regardless.

Thanks - I wasn't thinking about even though the original question was in that context. I was thinking of this in terms of where a cross-tested profit sharing (and maybe even cash balance) was part of the equation and so limiting HCE contributions could be helpful in passing average benefits percentages. Shame on me for over-complicating on Friday afternoon!

Where did the document come from and who are all the service providers "none" of which can support the specific provision (which means a serious disconnect between those functions)? If it is a provision in a plan document and has been communicated to participants (SPD) but you are not offering it because your service provider(s) cannot support then I agree with MoJo that there is a fiduciary issue. On the other hand, if it is an available document provision (an adoption agreement option) for your document version but which has not actually been selected because your service provider(s) will not support, then that is not an issue between the employer and plan participants. It is a concern as MoJo stated as to the quality of the service provider(s).