CuseFan

Agree that benefits should be calculated using correct data and in compliance with plan provisions. This is also a good time to suggest an "internal audit" of plan data to verify completeness and accuracy given the previously described situation and, as the successor actuary you may want to insist or "strongly recommend". If an error in one direction gets corrected (in the sponsor's/owner's favor) but another error in the other direction does not get corrected, you/they got lots of 'splaining to do Lucy.

I had never had a DCP spin-off (or merger) that didn't meet one of the exceptions that exempted the transaction from filing. Maybe IRS will inquire about balance differences/unallocated accounts as a follow up, if they follow up at all, that would be my guess.

Yes, the lovely nuances of international work!

agree 100% - but in order to allow this the plan must first have a Roth deferral provision.

Exactly - current tax year deduction subject current year limit.

yes.

Absent a QDRO, depending on plan terms it could be that the participant was required to commence a single life annuity rather than a J&S. If person was put into pay status automatically at RBD, then that may likely be the case. If they made a valid election of a J&S, and plan allows for non-spouse beneficiary, then that may be irrevocably set. It seems like you know the facts, apply the terms of the plan based on those facts, including any adjustments and corrections to what was initially done. If there is a subsequent, post commencement QDRO, then it could assign a portion of the retiree's life annuity but that would cease upon the retiree's death, you could not after the fact implement a forced J&S upon the plan.

I think the QRP rules are fairly specific and detailed, that any remaining excess not allocated after the earlier of the 7th year or termination of the QRP (due to 415 limits, otherwise you must allocate to remaining participants at such time) must be reverted and is subject to taxes. If a QRP to a QRP were allowed, an employer could simply run a string of QRPs that used excess assets indefinitely into the future. https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=26-USC-276939643-615333267&term_occur=999&term_src=title:26:subtitle:D:chapter:43:section:4980

I don't think so. Furthermore, I don't think that person is statutorily excludable from coverage and discrimination testing (assuming Martha is US citizen) as none of the listed exclusions apply. She simply goes from an eligible class of employee to non-eligible class of employee, and still earns vesting service for employment with XYZ UK.

Google is a wonderful thing - see forms IT-2104P, NYS-1 and NYS-45. Paychex not helpful? Shocker!

Agree with Calavera, and think that the RE company is not prof svcs and as participating ER there is no PBGC exemption.

probably not necessary unless some are over comp limit and others under. that way each is limited to same max % rather than same dollar amount. example above, but assume the $60k HCE was owner's son. if small plan, consider SH and avoid that worry altogether.

Yes, sorry, I was questioning myself after I sent - it was so long ago that I even forgot the (ir)relevant Code Section. At least I didn't go Corporal Klinger and say Section 8! (Yeah, I know, a lot of you youngsters are asking who's Corporal Klinger?) Answer for curious minds, and this is based on the memory of 60-year-old so cut me some slack, Section 89 was essentially the 401(a)(4) version of regulations for health and welfare plans, it came out well in advance of its effective date, and it had employers and practitioners spending boatloads of time preparing and determining how to test if plans were compliant or how they could make them compliant - but was ultimately repealed either just before or after it was to take effect, rewarding all the procrastinators who decided to be reactive rather than proactive. I was an underling at the time but will let you guess which side of the Section 89 fence we were on!

Alternatively, consider that the company C 401(k) plan fails coverage (not to mention nondiscrimination), is deemed not qualified and therefore contributions are returned as not deductible. Need to amend any W2 and tax return(s) based on the invalid deduction. So basically, similar result as presented by Peter but even if documents were signed. You'll need to confirm if document language supports.

Agreed

I don't know if company being an S-corp makes this impossible, but can't the company distribute the shares and then repurchase them directly from participants? I know there is an ESOP guy on this forum, so hoping he'll chime in with a definitive answer for you.

1984, so I came in as most of TEFRA became effective (right? passed in 82, effective in 84), have all the legal alphabet soup under my belt, except of course for ERISA. Over the years, the one thing I noticed was the increasing creativity of the law acronyms, starting with COBRA, but certainly with CARES, SECURE and now EARN, RISE and SHINE - someone gets paid good money to think these up! Finally, an old timer's trivia question - who remembers Section 83, what is was and what ultimately happened to it. Clue - maybe the biggest time waster for employee benefits professionals in the last 40 years.

Allow some older practitioners their nostalgia!

and it would already be included in box 1 taxable so no add back required

You don't NEED to restate, but you do need to make sure the plan is fully up to date with law and regulations (even if interim amendments are not yet due) and the best way to ensure that is to restate and include the plan provider's amendment for terminating plans.

If CG then you must aggregate for $250k threshold. Is this a CG because CA is a CP state, or because they have minor children, some other reason? One or more of the current pension bills being considered (SECURE 2.0, RISE and SHINE, EARN) has provision for making these situations not CGs w/o needing to worry about community property or minor children, but whether that makes the final cut and gets enacted, we'll see.

Not sure, but why? If it's a RK issue they've already had to deal with it. Why not wait and eliminate 1/1/23?

Corey, that is exactly what I remember - what I can't remember is where I saved it before, if I did, probably next to the car keys, cell phone or TV remote! So was sure to save this is in logical (for now) place. Thanks!

I recall that bona fide vacation and sick leave plans are not considered deferred compensation, but would suggest the employer have qualified counsel (legal or industry expert) opine on its particular design/plan. As another forum contributor disclaims - the free advice you get here (although sometimes very helpful) should be viewed as worth the price you paid.

I thought I remember seeing a flowchart on ASG determinations somewhere a number of years back but couldn't find it in my on-line library. You can ask Google, that's often my first step. I use the WK answer books as a resource and also recommend Derrin Watson's Who's the Employer? but many of the ASG rules are still clear as mud to me. Some situations are very apparent one way or the other, but anything with a hint of gray I'm with CBZ and steer them to qualified legal counsel.