CuseFan

If a participant has been deceased that long, were not items such as statements, fee disclosures, SARs, SPDs, etc. returned as undeliverable? If a family member continued to receive then yes, it surprising no one came forward with a claim. Usually death searches are done on pension plan retiree populations (sometimes including deferred) but rarely if ever on DC plans - maybe that's a practice that should be undertaken?

CBZ is spot on.

A multiple employer trust is different than a multiple employer plan - you can have the former without the latter. This is different than a master trust, where assets of multiple plans of a single employer or controlled group of employers are contained in a single trust. I do not think there are any restrictions on solo plans entering into this sort of arrangement.

If this happened say 9/15 and then was reversed with a negative deferral on the next payroll, say 9/30, would we even be having this discussion? There has been no mention of matching contributions - so it that not an issue here? Again, bigger issues, an individual's ability to manipulate data/systems w/o oversight/controls (at least in appearance) - which may not be your ex-colleague's place to bring up - and the payroll system's failure to properly limit, although that could have been due to the oddity of the payroll calendar and a last minute change. That is something your ex-colleague should bring up. I know our company was originally going to keep 26 bi-weekly pay periods for 2020 but then decided early 4Q to accelerate Friday 1/1/2021 to Thursday 12/31/2020 and make 2020 a 27 pay period year because it would be paid that day - and probably easier to do that rather than pay on 12/31 effective 1/1 and include in 2021.

If someone is questioning what a former owner received from the Plan then they can sue - if they have standing - for that sort of information. Otherwise, what has been noted above is more than sufficient (subject participant statements, plan totals and relevant calculation formulas. And, until there is an actual QDRO, I don't think the estranged non-participant spouse has any standing to sue any more than you or me.

Both? 401(k) contributions, including catch-up, are limited to the lesser of $26,000 or 100% of compensation (similar to 415), which in this case is $25,500, correct?. Regardless, the $500 must be distributed for correction.

If it's a pooled account, then accounting/valuation numbers need only include the subject participant and plan totals at needed dates - where is there any need to disclose anything concerning other participants?

From a plan perspective, was his next deferral a negative $750? Is the plan and his account square? It is unclear from your description if all the required +'s and -'s have occurred. As it was last payroll and probably the last business day of the year, I don't think earnings are an issue, no more gap period interest, right? I think the bigger picture problem is that you have an individual, especially in a large company, who was able to manipulate his W-2, payroll and 401(k) on his own without any apparent oversight or controls. If the cash does not reconcile to account and/or payroll records - it may or may not show up on plan (CPA) audit or IRS audit - but if it does, I think the issue is much greater than a compliance limit.

Per an ASPPA webcast on Earned Income presented by Darrin Watson, net earnings from self employment (NESE) is based on the total of all (so $50,000 net) for purposes of determining the SECA tax adjustment but he opines that you would use the sum of the NESE from each business, but separately not less than zero. His reasoning is that if entities were incorporated then W-2 would be $100,000. He also states that there is no clear guidance. In summary, your SECA adjustment should be made using (B) $50,000 and such should be made on (A) $100,000, BUT given the lack of guidance, would suggest you go forward under (C) "our understanding is... but there is no definitive guidance, so you and client must decide".

You can provide in-service w/d for non-restricted funds (i.e., those not restricted prior to 59 1/2, hardship or separation, such as 401k) on whatever uniform and nondiscriminatory basis. However, it gets administratively messy if you allow from partially vested accounts.

And here's hoping that all you not yet 64 (myself included) survive the craziness and make it there - and well beyond!

The average benefit percentage is calculated by considering ALL contributions to ALL plans within the CG, so the only people with zero rates anywhere should be those with zero deferral, zero match, and zero profit sharing/safe harbor/non-elective. Groups 1 & 2 are only zeroes for purposes of determining rate groups under the general test for nondiscrimination, which you should not need to do. If Plan 9 satisfies coverage and provides uniform percentage (design based safe harbor), you should be good, but you have one average benefit percentage for the entire control group that is based on all contributions. Yes, be mindful of BRFs.

I'm sure the plan has the required language that all service with the "employer" counts and then says for such purpose that employer means all employers required to be aggregated under Code Section .... (control group and affiliated service group rules) - there's your answer. Think in the other direction - I work for my US-based company for three years, am 40% vested and then transfer to a subsidiary based in Canada or Mexico or wherever. Am I terminated and eligible for a distribution? I don't think so, and so my vesting service shouldn't stop either.

A quick google brought up this, which indicates an original UK pension age of 70. A lot harder to rhyme seventy. Of course, sixty-five is no picnic to rhyme either, although "survive" comes to mind immediately. 1908 We look at the history of pensions in the UK and highlight the key changes that could affect your future. 1908 The Old Age Pensions Act introduced a pension of between 10p and 25p per week to people aged 70 or over. This came into effect on January 1st 1909, which is known as Pensions Day.

What sort of contribution(s) - 401k, match, PS - and what sort of dollar amounts? If retired and not working elsewhere, I assume they would have deductible IRA availability, so paying out side the plan but encouraging IRA contribution could get them where they would have been. Likely already rolled - or will roll - distribution to IRA so no need to establish one just for this extra nub. If plan had the flexibility and these were NHCEs, then possibly doing an extra PS contribution for them for 2020 would work. You asked for thoughts - those are mine.

I would not suggest for a DBP regardless. Assuming a 415 max benefit formula for max deduction and you then get a 100% or 200% return on assets - there go your deductions, and if your near the plan's end life/termination (or owner dies) now you have excess asset and excise tax problems. Flip side, you experience a 50% or 75% loss - now your MRC jumps and plan may become unaffordable. If sole prop wanted to roll the bitcoin dice, I would do only in a Roth IRA or 401(k) - assuming, of course, compliance with the requirements laid out by Peter.

My understanding is that a plan that merges into another must be up to date and that is something IRS specifically looks at. Line 13 on Form 5307 asks if plan was involved in a merger (among other things) and the instructions then say what additional information must be attached: Line 13. Attach a statement that provides the following for the plans involved: 1. Name of plans, 2. Type of plan, 3. Date of merger, consolidation, spinoff, or a transfer of plan assets or liabilities, and 4. Verification that each plan involved was qualified at the time of the merger, consolidation, spinoff, or a transfer of plan assets or liabilities. If plans are pre-approved w/o modification and/or individually designed such that there are no determination letter submissions, that does not eliminate this requirement.

Dave, I think Bill was referring to recent posts by Ken McDonnell.

Agree. Those should be prohibited.

Bill, first, I hope it's not me and second, do I get 3 guesses? Just reading some intolerable postings by someone whose handle would come very late alphabetically.

Agree with Lou, no issue preparing and sending to participants but doubt you can file with IRS.

Real estate agents are generally independent contractors. Look at from the flip side - I'm an agent working with that agency and all my income is 1099 self-employment income, can I set up my own "solo" plan? I would say yes. It's more a question about parents and that the other 15% owner(s) and if there are any employees (W-2) of the agency, like administrative support.

And remember, Roth is post-tax so in addition to medical insurance, FICA and Medicare taxes, and any other withholdings, federal and state taxes will be withheld, and I would think the Roth deferral comes last. 401(k) is withheld off of "plan compensation" which is often gross pay, although there may be some exclusions. As Q said, refer to the SPD. You should be able to model this to see if there is enough left over, after all other deductions, to satisfy the elected deferral percentage and, if not, adjust accordingly - either lowering the percentage or electing a sustainable flat dollar amount of the plan allows.

And this is a strategy that you should review with your accountant or financial advisor, if you have either, for any unforeseen "gotchas" or missed pieces as Lou noted. If you are using this strategy to help delay taking SS, then that piece won't yet be an issue. Minimizing taxes is good but can you live on $100k per year (and pay for all you need, like healthcare, and all you want, like vacations) and how will that depletion compare to your joint life expectancies? Will you run out of money early or have large RMDs at age 72 that trigger large tax bills? You shouldn't view retirement income in the tax vacuum. If I could take $200k in retirement income less $40k in taxes, knowing it would last my retirement and I could live the life I wanted, or opt to take $100k in annual income, outsmarting the government paying zero taxes as long as possible, but having to scrimp and sacrifice throughout the earliest and healthiest years of my retirement, I choose the former every time. Sounds like your retirement funds are well diversified from a tax perspective. I would recommend, if you don't already have an advisor, find a reputable fee for service provider and pay for qualified advice that will help you map out a long term retirement income strategy that efficiently minimizes taxes (does not mean eliminate) throughout your joint life expectancies. There are very smart people on this forum but I would not seek free advice and confirmation of my complex retirement income situation here or any other on-line forum.

Kind of in Belgarath's court here, the only possible damages incurred would be related to being under withheld on state taxes. I think they would have to have had substantial distributions for that to be the case. The obvious question/issue - and one I would make were I the carrier (not that I excuse them for poor service) - is how/why did the recipients only "discover" this only when getting their 1099? That is total BS. If I'm expecting a $10,000 payout and I know that 20% must be withheld for Federal taxes AND I ELECTED ANOTHER 10% (hello, McFly), then I'm also smart enough (I hope) to know that I should be getting a check for $7,000 and realize that something isn't quite right when they send me $8,000. This lack of personal responsibility drives me nuts - like when a person elects a salary REDUCTION contribution but then doesn't notice (for a whole year even - c'mon McFly!) that their weekly (or whatever) pay did not go down. Anyway, done pontificating, go 'Cuse, in the Sweet 16 baby!