CuseFan

exactly

But if you had in the plan, allowed an owner or HCE to take advantage of, and then amended out - you might have a discrimination issue, especially if the provision was not in the plan for a while, or was amended out before NHCEs became fully vested and were able to utilize.

That is a question for the person's accountant and/or IRA trustee/custodian.

If SEP is on IRS model document Form 5305-SEP, that precludes the sponsor from having another plan. If SEP document is on a pre-approved volume submitter/prototype document then you can have another plan. The SEP is treated as a DC plan. If more than 6% of compensation has already been funded for 2021 then you have a combined plan deduction limit of 31% of compensation, which likely severely limits the DB deduction - unless they can somehow finagle a return of 2021 SEP contributions.

no

Yes, common sense should prevail. I mean how often do you resolve a questionable situation or an obvious mistake by applying common sense but still end up in trouble with the IRS or some other government entity? Oh wait, yeah, better refer them to their attorney.

seconded, or may now it's third-ed.

That is a great point. Assuming the currently outstanding loans are not with HCEs, amending the plan to cease new loans effective 1/1/2022 (for example) is perfectly acceptable.

Unless it's a management group relationship, you need some ownership overlap for an ASG, so you most likely do not have an ASG.

As are those who don't know what they're talking about.

I feel your pain, but my understanding is that the organization offering the activity for potential CPE must submit the activity material to the respective governing organization(s) to be approved for allowing credit. So unless a session was submitted and approved for ERPA CPE, no matter how relevant to ERPA duties, I don't think it gets recognized for CPE. Not saying it's right or wrong, just that it is. Sorry

Did you acquire the assets of B or the stock of B? If just the assets, then I don't think you have any obligation. If it's the latter, you assumed all assets AND liabilities of B, including the pension plan and obligations related thereto. If those liabilities were indeed satisfied before the acquisition then maybe no issue for you - but that is the underlying question here. If the pension plan was covered by the PBGC, plan termination records are required to be maintained for seven years, so those should have been turned over. They may not be of any help here but it's worth having if possible. These records might also show that an annuity was purchased, the benefit was paid in a lump sum, or turned over to PBGC. A likely scenario is this person making a claim because they applied for Social Security and SSA gave them a letter saying they may have a benefit from this plan. Many people who were paid out their benefits years ago get these letters, forget they got paid (or think they have more coming) and come looking for their benefit. Plan sponsors are required to report deferred pension benefits to SSA (which is why this letter gets triggered) but it is an option to subsequently report a deletion to SSA when someone gets paid that benefit and laziness by plan sponsors and/or TPAS years ago results in these sorts of headaches now. We would have our clients respond in such an instance as follows: The plan was terminated as of XXXXXXX and all benefits were paid out and/or annuities purchased and/or turned over to PBGC in the case of missing or unresponsive participants. If you did not receive a significant volume of notices and forms during that time period then you had no accrued benefit in the plan at such time and your benefit was either previously paid to you in a lump sum or forfeited if you were not vested. Please check your prior financial records (bank, brokerage, IRA, etc.). If you still believe you are entitled to a benefit, please provide information to substantiate, such as a benefit statement. If a plan had small benefit cash-out provisions, general lump sum provision, or offered lump sum windows periodically, we would make note of those as well. You likely do not have that sort of information either. Usually this is sufficient to jog their memory or otherwise make them go away. Sometimes we have to dig through historical records to find a proof of distribution, but that is the rare case. Hope this was helpful, good luck.

Seriously?! Yikes.

Do not fully understand your question. There are pre-approved plans (still referred to as volume submitter plans by some) which have a 6-year cycle. Pre-approved DCP are in the current cycle with a 7/31/2022 restatement due date. Plan documents that are not on a pre-approved document (i.e., individually designed, or treated as such) are no longer on any cycle. They can get initial determination letters, DLs upon plan termination, and certain other special circumstances as IRS may allow. These plans are required to adopt interim amendments according to an IRS published list/schedule. If/when such amendments are due depends on the type of plan and what statutory requirements are lacking. Plans are not required to be restated until after 5 (I think) amendments and I don't think simple interim or administrative amendments count toward that.

Yes, but be careful on the (more than) 50% - is it just owns or "considered owning" as well? I don't recall, but if it includes the latter, then you need to make sure he has no currently exercisable option to buy the other 50% (or part thereof) as he would be considered as owning more than 50%.

I don't think you are precluded from doing so but remember your transferred excess assets are required to be allocated (reasonably) ratably over 7 years or less.

The 5-year rule language is the standard/generic RMD provision, but a DBP can certainly provide only the QPSA in which case the 5-year rule would not be an option.

Yes, I believe if you are a 5% owner in the year you attain age 70.5 then you are considered such in the future regardless of any divestitures.

agreed

As long as the plan sponsor adopts (or intendeds to adopt) a SECURE amendment timely (or one is pushed out by the VS sponsor) then they can interpret the provision under the new rules even before amendment gets adopted.

If the account is closed and there is no longer a trust, how is there is still a plan? And why would you not execute a resolution to terminate and file a final EZ? That would be the smart thing to do. Otherwise you technically have an ongoing obligation to maintain updated plan documents. Just because something might be technically legal doesn't mean it's not ill-advised.

Agreed, you don't really have a terminated plan.

If you have a partial termination then everyone affected must be fully vested, and I believe that is everyone who terminated during the year. The reasoning: - people who terminated before an event (mass layoff, plant closing, sale of division, etc.) may have received forewarning and left to find a new job before being directly impacted. - people who terminated after an event may have been encouraged ("you're next") or saw writing on the wall, or thought the ship was sinking. There's never an issue saying you have a PT and fully vesting, whereas having IRS or DOL come in a year later after seeing 5500 filing and after forfeitures have been taken and applied can be a big hassle.

Correct. The only reason notices were eliminated for the SHNE is because employees did not need to do anything to receive those contributions, and the powers that be finally came to their senses after years of having to notify participants that they were getting 3% in the coming year (again) whether they contributed or not. Since matching contributions require employee deferrals, annual notices make sense - otherwise, how many doctor/owner plans would you see where "strangely" it was only the doctor with deferrals and safe harbor match?

You have two separate but related issues - the timing for deductions and the effective date (and timing) for a plan year valuation. You can deduct the pension contribution for the PY in the fiscal year that begins in the PY, ends in the PY, or some combination thereof that I've never seen anyone actually do. You say when the valuation was done but do not say what the valuation date was - it has to be either BOY or EOY. A 1/1/2020 valuation, even if done late 2020 would use 2019 compensation. What I don't know is if you are allowed to do an EOY (12/31) valuation BEFORE the end of the year. Usually the reason plans will do EOY valuation is to use that year's compensation, whether to get owner(s) a better benefit, 415 limit, or accommodate annual fluctuations. My understanding is that you are supposed to use the most recent available data for the valuation, and if 2020 PY compensation was not available when doing the 2020 valuation, then using 2019 compensation (increased for salary scale) is proper - certainly if doing a BOY valuation and IF you are allowed to do EOY valuation before the EOY. I have not seen that done but doesn't mean it's not allowed. I'm sure someone out there who is smarter than me knows that answer.