CuseFan

Thanks for all your wisdom and happy retirement! And for resurrecting great memories - my old world German grandmother made those, they were awesome, and she lived to almost 103 (must have been the cookies!), so wishing you that quality time with your mom. Best of luck!

It's not clear exactly what you are asking or the general context of the question. You mention deferred commencement, retroactive annuity starting date, and required minimum distributions. Your plan should have clear definitive language regarding all of these and your vendor's software solution should not permit anything inconsistent with those provisions - but you should start with your vendor.

You can have a SEP and a qualified plan but cannot use the IRS model SEP (or whatever the proper description) and must use a provider SEP document, the terms of which allow for sponsorship of another plan.

No, you are not crazy but that is exactly the proper accounting treatment (it is still a participant loan and a plan investment, just not a participant directed/segregated investment). This was how all loans used to be administered before the days of any participant investment direction (for those of us old enough to remember). That is also a primary reason for the long standing requirement that the loan bear a market rate of interest.

Exactly. Plan should either have SoB provision (and notice provided accordingly) or the plan should provide for the automatic commencement of benefits if/when actuarial increases would otherwise cause benefit to exceed 415 limit (which is a standard in the pre-approved plans I've seen and we use).

I believe the requirement is you cannot contribute to a SIMPLE and a qualified plan for the same tax year, so I don't think 401k needs to formally terminate, but why maintain, file 5500's, etc.?

Yes, in general your understanding is correct.

A simple non-actuarial general response is that yes, to the extent asset under performance results in the plan being under funded then the employer will be responsible for additional contributions, but on an amortized basis (pay off the shortfall over time) rather than an immediate dollar for dollar requirement. As noted above, there are a lot of moving parts and actuarial calculations and other experience related items like forfeitures that enter the equation.

Exactly - it clearly defines the contribution amount/percentage to which everyone is entitled. Regarding nondiscrimination, you may need to test, but that doesn't change the contribution allocation obligation because it's a MPPP, and any failure would need to be addressed via 11g amendment (or plan failsafe provision) and NHCE increase.

Yeah, was going to mention that as possibility as well - good call - but then you have to treat anyone else coming from X in the future the same way, unless you give the amendment limited window period.

Sure, why not?

So a 3% SH plus a 10% match? I would be asking/checking if they really need to be a SH plan with a match like that and with up to 13% available/possible for employer contributions, are they as efficiently designed as they can be - subject to employer objectives of course. I thought you had to ACP the entire match, but I don't do that testing so I'm not sure.

rather than amend and allow in by name, maybe consider something like PAs hired between X-Y, or similar. comes across more like satisfying a business need rather than catering to an individual employee. but purely semantics.

If A has no assets or liabilities or such is being liquidated/settled and A no longer exists as an entity, and then the former employees of A become employees of B, then hard pressed to say a merger, but is that truly the case? If there is equipment and/or a book of business/patients that are transferring to B then more likely a merger.

Just had this conversation with a colleague but in the context of a single employer plan, so not sure if requirements are the same. Yes, you generally must provide updated SPD to all participants but there is an alternative manner of compliance with respect to deferred vested and retired participants. If you had provided them with the latest SPD and subsequent SMMs at the time of separation or commencement, then you can provide them with a notice that the SPD has been updated, and they can request a copy (at no charge), but that their benefits were determined on the basis of the terms as presented in the prior version of the SPD/SMMs which they received. See 2520.104b-4 Alternative methods of compliance for furnishing the summary plan description and summaries of material modifications of a pension plan to a retired participant, a separated participant with vested benefits, and a beneficiary receiving benefits

Depends on the terms of the plan, the size of the balance and the reason for the distribution.

Assuming the Plan Sponsor, not the TPA, is the Plan Administrator then the Sponsor should be the one authorizing cash out distributions and default rollovers and failure to do so in accordance with the plan document is an operational defect. If 402(f) notices have been sent, the proper time elapses, and rollovers are not made then you have a compliance problem - this is no different than if someone returned an election saying pay me and withhold taxes but then never gets paid. Also, ignoring a cash out provision altogether, which doesn't appear to be your case, is an operational defect as well.

Agree w/CBZ and any facts about the investment - no matter how stellar - are irrelevant.

The eligibility computation period is the first twelve months of employment and should not be impacted by a short plan year, I wouldn't think. Your pro-rated hours for short plan year apply to hours for vesting and contribution entitlement. Although, if you shift eligibility computation period to the plan year because 1000 hours was not worked in first twelve months and that is the short year then I would say you prorate according to the length of the short year.

Lou is correct - they must get at least 30 days to elect direct distribution with taxes withheld or a direct rollover.

If an employee is eligible to make a deferral in a plan they are considering benefiting under that plan for purposes of 410(b), so in your case it appears to be both plans.

Or they can consider an outsourced loan administrator/product, like My Plan Loan, which can work with a TPA and takes the employer out of the equation. This also allows for continued loan repayments after an employee terminates. Doesn't make a lot of sense for one, but if they expect more loans in the future it may be worthwhile to explore.

If statutory changes, probably OK, but if discretionary changes then VCP is the proper way to go. If the amendment was a reduction or limitation compared to prior revision, you'll likely need documentation of all the other steps completed in a timely manner, such as board resolution, employee communications, vendor communications, etc. demonstrating timely employer intent and (with the exception of signature) execution.

I don't think making a lump sum payment now gets them out of any future periodic payments. My mortgage allows me to make additional ad hoc payments but if I make the equivalent of six monthly payments that does not relieve me of the obligation to make my next six payments. I would think the loan program allowance is for additional ad hoc principal payments rather than consolidating 12 semi-monthly payments into one semi-annual payment (6 into one quarterly payment - although that may be OK under 72(p) - but you are essentially changing the term of the loan). I would also see what the note says.

Exactly, you have three plans with all employees in all three plans. Whether X, Y or Z can declare and allocate a PS contribution to their intended plan only depends on the terms of the respective plans.