CuseFan

Yes. Essentially the corporation is investing its assets in investments chosen by the NQDC participants. Taxable investment earnings should be reported out under the corporation's EIN and included in its taxable income. If assets are in a rabbi trust then I'm not sure if it's the trust itself that has a tax liability or the corporation - but there is no tax deferral/deduction for the company until there is taxable income to the employee.

So owner-only non-pbgc covered DB plan - yes, combined deduction limits apply and PS must be limited to 6% or you essentially end up with a 31% combined limit. Assuming they do not do salary deferrals elsewhere, be sure to include 401(k) provision so each can also defer $19,500 or $26,000.

Agree with above. My experience is that the employer appoints and removes the trustee(s) and so it is employer and new trustee who sign amendment but (check plan/trust language) you sometimes need the removed trustee to acknowledge they are no longer trustee - whether you do that as part of the amendment or some kind of add-on or other form is up to you and/or the employer.

Exactly. If you had a QDRO that the Plan received and acknowledged - that is, the Plan Administrator informed you that the DRO was "qualified" and hence a QDRO, and then the Plan Administrator failed to follow the terms of the QDRO then you have a legal action to bring against the Plan. You probably need to start with a formal claim for benefits and go from there. If your claim is denied, then formally appeal, and then bring suit if necessary - ERISA does make you go through a hierarchy before bringing a lawsuit, and you don't necessarily need an attorney for the claim and appeal, but may want the help just the same. Good luck!

Yes, provided the document specifies that. Note, however, if plan is top heavy that your TH minimum is based on all compensation regardless.

Correct - ALWAYS use Employer's EIN on 5500. ONLY use Trust EIN (plan's do not get EINs but trusts do) on 1099-R and Sched R. And Bird is showing his/her age by mentioning Schedule P!

Sure, why not? Fresh start on how you calculate the accrued benefit does not impact how you test (unless you also test from a fresh start date, which you would not want to do).

Kudos for working at a payroll company AND knowing how to administer a retirement plan. That is very much the exception rather than the rule at these companies more concerned with sales than service, expecting that convenience and/or inertia will retain enough clients despite generally subpar service. Anyone who thinks the likes of ADP and Paychex et al care much about the quality of service after a sale is on-boarded is deluding themselves more than certain people in a large pale house around the middle of the east coast.

CBZ is absolutely correct and you should definitely have DCP amended to match NRA in CBP.

My understanding is 3401(a) compensation is any amount upon which withholding is required, so I think this tuition reimbursement is included.

I think you have a problem adopting a plan retro to 1/1/2020 for a business that started 3/1/2020. You don't prorate salaries, you prorate 415 and 401(a)(17) limits at 10/12 of the annual limit. For 2020 there is no lookback year compensation for anyone so your only HCE(s) in 2020 is (are) 5%+ owner(s) in 2020. I do not think you have a BRF issue.

I think there is no difference when applying the rules to traditional DB or CB formula. There was some guidance a few years back that clarified the offset is applied to CB accrued benefit and not current DC contributions versus current CB service credits.

11/30 or 12/1 on notice, amendment need not be adopted until 12/31

I think the requirement to allocate those assets to participants ratably over a specified period not exceeding 6 or 7 years, I forget which, precludes their use for anything else, including payment of expenses. Deviation from that could result in excise taxes retroactively applying to those transferred assets. I also do not think that the preparation of the initial plan document is an expense eligible to be paid from plan assets.

You could adopt any time up till then (9/30) with the SH (and PS, if applicable) effective back to 1/1, if desired, but deferrals cannot begin until after the plan is adopted.

I believe the exclusion is if they don't benefit by reason of termination of employment and worked less than 501 hours. Your situation appears that they don't benefit because the employer chose not to provide them with a contribution, and so I would concur with you.

If the plan document allows for commencement at NRA while still employed - so you may need to amend.

If they can get to where neither is an employee of the other's business(es) nor provides services to the other's business(es) and they have no minor children and they are not in a community property state, then they are golden and Betty can do a solo plan to her heart's content. But it sounds like Betty's business is serving Bob's businesses, so in breaking that chain does she even have a business any more?

Yes, provided the plan had previously received a D-letter. PLR can be prohibitively expensive for a small plan. How large a plan and employer/control group are you dealing with and by how many employees are you missing the SH% and is there the ability to bring in people to pass - or does the size and HCE/NHCE makeup of this CG member not make that possible without bringing in another CG member?

You can only say these are the rules and I'll be happy to help you play by them and wish you luck elsewhere if you decide not to. Some people just don't like to accept the writing on the wall.

Severance pay - we ended your job but will pay you $X per month (or whatever) over the next two years - is NEVER compensation for qualified plan purposes. However, and maybe things have changed, I thought to be a bona fide severance plan you could not pay out over more than two years. Seems to be a disconnect there - so maybe (although intended as such) this is not a true severance plan/benefit and these are considered deferred compensation payments rather than severance, in which case the 401(k) plan document should indeed describe the treatment of such.

You obviously did not get, or did not take, qualified advice from your TPA or failed to disclose all the facts to such party (already funded max PS) before going forward with this arrangement. This is a tax issue and now you need advice from a qualified tax advisor - i.e., your accountant. If you have already contributed more than 6% PS for 2020 then you essentially have a 31% deduction limit for 2020 between the two plans. Again, you need accounting advice, but my non-accountant opinion is that you'll be able to deduct only a portion of your 2020 cash balance contribution for 2020 (which hopefully you haven't deposited yet) and then will need to deduct rest on 2021 return along with as much as legally/actuarially possible of the 2021 cash balance contribution, AND limit your 2021 PS to 6% or less of your eligible compensation, depositing such AFTER year-end and your eligible compensation is known with certainty. Note, the creation/existence of the CB plan does not make your PS plan deduction limit 6%. How much you already contributed for 2020 PS drives what your total deduction limit will be. Maybe others will opine differently, but again, this is a tax issue to discuss with your accountant as they are the ones opining on your tax return deduction.

Exactly, because granting past credited service for benefit accruals does not provide any additional participation service for (proration of ) 415 limit - good call.

I'm not sure, instructions just say before 180 days following PPTD, but do not say must be after the PPTD. Not that is holds any official weight, the graphical timeline bar in the instructions do start at PPTD and end 180 days later for various compliance items including the NOPB and the 500. But if there is no problem issuing NOPB before 12/31, why would there be one with the 500 filing. If you file, what's the worst that happens? PBGC rejects and makes you refile after 12/31.

Agree no reason not to use individual groups. I believe there was conversation within the last month or two concerning documentation for allocations. I noted that in an IRS audit the agent asked for a copy of the memo that authorized the allocation amounts/percentages to each respective group. I believe a number of people noted their practice was to have the employer/plan administrator execute a simple memo authorizing the contributions as presented in the attached schedule (which shows the individual allocations as determined by the RK/TPA or whoever).