CuseFan

Correct. But if plan is a CBP and now eligible for pre-approved document, you will probably want to restate and, if not an adoption w/o modification, submit for a D-letter.

I don't think that is a matter of public record. And personally, to me the idea that allowing in-service commencement from a DBP at age 62 is "Phased Retirement" is a joke. If you have specific coordinated options that help balance the pension income with reduced work schedule and pay and then further adjust or allow a new annuity starting date upon actual retirement at 65 or some later date, like SSNRA, then you might have a true phased retirement program. Maybe these exist in the government sector and/or the Fortune 500 type of pensions but I have yet to see anything I would truly call phased retirement. If you simply want a survey of DBPs that offer age 62 in-service, I don't know where or how you would get that, and now with BAMA allowing DB in-service at age 59 1/2, that universe is all likely to change anyway.

If IRS intent here is to move along the VCP process by strictly and automatically (rather than at discretion) enforcing the 21-day info request turnaround because a majority of applicants to date have taken longer and/or routinely requested extensions, and by so doing we'll get responses on simple applications sooner than 12-18 months from current backlogs, then bring it on. If the intent is to reduce the volume of VCPs and increase the volume of audits, then boo hiss.

Or, if you don't pass 414(s) then I think you can (must) calculate ACP based on a gross compensation or some other 414(s) definition.

I would hope they would share with you their reasons for discarding the seemingly easiest and most viable option if they're asking for you to provide a solution. The only reason I could think of would be better creditor protection? If he must have it in a qualified plan, then why not just keep in the DBP until that plan terminates? Of course, that just kicks the can down to road. I would also take a good look at the existing document (and available provision options) and not just take the vendor's word for it. Maybe you tell them you can't have everything (where would you put it?). Good luck.

Unless the plan is a cash balance plan, the term account balance is meaningless and, unfortunately the attorney who drafted the attempted QDRO didn't know the difference between a DB and DC plan. It boggled my mind over the years to continuously see that "splitting the account balance" language in a QDRO for DBP and even more ridiculously see the Majauskas formula to split the accrued benefit in a DCP. Also, that a TPA would have this from 2006 and not questioned it or flat out tell their client to reject it is inexcusable, IMHO. I don't know how you comply - there is no account balance at said date nor earnings thereafter, there is only and accrued benefit and a present value at particular points in time. Maybe going back to the parties to make it right and able to administer/comply but I have no other insights, sorry.

Don't forget this either. If that amount transferred in 2019 you have to begin using it in 2019, either in entirety or (because that's obviously not an option here) in installments over a period not exceeding 7 years. If they fail to do so and get caught then excise taxes on the reversion (plus interest and penalties) would apply.

Plans sometime need to be aggregated to satisfy coverage (410b) or nondiscrimination (401a4) and if you must combine for one then you also must combine for the other, in which case you treat the aggregated plan as a single plan. None of that precludes someone from being covered by a more than one 401k plan of an employer. Coverage under multiple plans sometimes happens in a given year when an employee changes union/non-union status, divisions/locations within a company and/or goes to work with another member in the control group and there are different plans covering different groups of employees, in which case participation usually switches (ends/begins) when status changes. However, to be concurrently covered under multiple 401k plans of the same employer/control group is very rare - I can't recall the last time I've seen it, if ever, in 30+ years - but not precluded. And the rules CBZ notes above were drafted to prevent HCEs from benefiting being in multiple plans and somehow circumventing the nondiscrimination rules.

Your plan should have an investment advisor you can go to for answers to your questions. If not, and you have a sizable account balance, then you should consider your own fee for service advisor. You can try to educate yourself to make the right decisions on a timely basis, but learning retirement plan investing on the fly is probably not a good idea unless you are fairly young and new in your career and retirement savings. And no, I'm not an investment advisor.

Agree w/CBZ and as I have said before, just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD. Documentation would be problematic unless you had the employee sign a release that (s)he did not provide notice. What do you do if someone just stops showing up later in the year? Did they quit w/o notice (no match) or did you fire them for not showing up (match), or do they plan on no match if fired? So you must work 520 hours and terminate voluntarily with notice and remain employed through notice period? Then what happens if I give notice and after a week my employer says I don't need you for the next week, today is your last day? This is so rife with potential problems - do your client a big favor and talk them out of this mistake like a good consultant.

I believe that is correct. I don't think that matters or is applicable for your general test - if you pass nondiscrimination in compensation then you can use that definition as your testing comp, I don't think you need to circle back. If your comp definition is such that you think it will pass, why not just general test using gross comp or some other safe harbor, or save steps and just do that first? Unless you have some funky large swings in excluded comp among HCEs and NHCEs screw that up.

Which is why the use of VATC for "backdoor Roth" IRAs only works (typically) for solo or HCE-only plans, or possibly some very large plans that are not SH but can pass ACP testing. Note you can use QNECs to help pass ACP testing, but you have no safe harbors as our esteemed colleagues stated.

The document should specify what 90 days of service means, whether it means 90 days of actual employment (actual hours makes no sense in the context of your question, but maybe it was for this intent) or to have been considered in employment for 90 days, i.e., elapsed time and simply being employed 90 days (or more) later. If this is an adoption agreement pre-approved plan you'll likely need to look at basic document for your answer. If you still don't have a clear answer, the answer may be the AA was improperly completed - mixing elapsed time and hours of service options to express an intent by the employer not explicitly allowed in the AA.

No problem, as long as 410b and 401a4 pass, which they very well could easily if you have a lot of non-excludable HCEs who do not benefit. BUT, you still need to allocate under the terms of the plan (and the terms of the employer's declaration of profit sharing). If the PS is declared as going to A, B and C but B got excluded by mistake, I see that as a problem. If PS is declared by each company separately, and A and C declare PS while B does not, then no problem (subject to testing of course). Remember, if the employer(s) designates each individual's PS then there should be declaration, documentation, memo, etc. as to that effect and as to the actual allocations.

Yes, sorry, I was over-simplifying.

Contributing more than 6% PS means the 31% combined limit applies - it does not mean that if your total DB/DC was more than 31% that just the excess of PS above 6% is not deductible, whatever exceeds 31% of eligible payroll is not deductible.

I think if it is control group then service has to count for eligibility and vesting. They just go from not an eligible employee to an eligible employee, similar to moving from non-participating affiliated employer to a participating employer, or from union coverage to non-union. Document language should specify and support.

What about SECURE Act relief, if the plan has been in existence long enough (5+ years) and not increased benefits within last 5 years?

Same RBD but with 72 substituted for 70.5 - so the 4/1 of the year following the calendar year in which the participant attained age 72 or, if later, retired. This applies to anyone who did not attain 70.5 by 12/31/2019 - those participants are under the old rules.

Why would you not? If you include this person and testing would then fail, do you think you then don't have to correct? If IRS audited do you think they would give the employer a free pass on testing with incorrect data?

I think any separation after NRA qualifies for retirement (and waiver of last day requirement), whether by death, disability, voluntary or involuntary termination.

Nope, it becomes effective for tax years beginning after 12/31/2019 - so 2020 plan years as you suspected.

yes, but he cannot get his RMD from the 401k plan into the IRA, the 401k plan must make its own RMD to the participant which is not rollover eligible in any fashion

Yes, plan document should clearly state whether she gets an accrual or not. Regardless, she is not statutorily excluded for coverage, nondiscrimination or minimum participation purposes.

What was the over/under? In all fairness to the PBGC, I'm sure the one person they have working on these is very busy. Very frustrating I'm sure, like waiting for IRS on a VCP submission.