CuseFan

and these must be done thru payroll withholding based on deferral election you made before the pay became available to you - i.e., you can't "write a check" at year-end for your catch-up contribution (unless you're self-employed like a partner in a partnership).

You may permissively aggregate for NDT if you also aggregate for coverage and BRFs, none of which should present a problem.

Failsafe language in DC is for coverage, which you pass, so that wouldn't kick in right? You could do 11g amendment to add NHCE of your choice for PS only - but may need to vest if not already partially vested.

That is a huge challenge, and near impossible if the employer (or participant) is in certain states (NY in particular) - which we've encountered trying to secure contracts on terminating DBPs with small liabilities that don't meet underwriting minimums. The plan buys the contract right, then distributes to participant? Also, I assume the person has reached NRA - so check the document and also determine whether person is missing or unresponsive. Are mailings being received/acknowledged or returned undeliverable? Have further diligent searches been performed? If missing, document may allow you to forfeit. If unresponsive, there may be communications sent that would elicit a response, such as "if you do not make an election then your account balance must be used to purchase an annuity for you from an insurance company which will then pay you a monthly benefit based on its current interest, mortality and fee structure, which will be locked in for the rest of your (and your spouse's) life". Telling them you're giving their money to an insurance company should generate a response. It has been a few years since I talked with them, because unfortunately they do not write contracts in NY, but Pacific Life was a company that seemed to indicate they would not shy away from small contracts. Good luck.

If plan(s) say TH provided in DC, then your TH% is 5% and your 3% SH counts toward that, leaving 2% PS to satisfy TH - BUT, as noted above, you should confirm such in the document.

Employer contributions in excess of 415 must be put in suspense, but if any remain on plan termination I thought those could actually be returned to the employer. I thought salary deferrals in excess of 415 get refunded regardless.

ditto. sometimes partnerships need that long to determine their income, and sometimes those determinations show little or no income, and income is needed for salary deferrals - so not only is this permissible, it is also quite reasonable.

As most of the participants on this site can attest from experience, the answer to that is almost always yes and even if you take the corrective steps as discussed, don't be surprised if the client still gets a "what's up" letter.

From page 17 of 1099R instructions. It sure looks like 7B is the appropriate code to me. B—Designated Roth account distribution. Use Code B for a distribution from a designated Roth account. But use Code E for a section 415 distribution under EPCRS (see Code E) or Code H for a direct rollover to a Roth IRA. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, G, L, M, P, or U

yes, generally the latest NRA between the two plans.

You say a separate location, but I assume you mean a separate business. As jpod noted, you'll need to first determine if there is a control group or affiliated service group and, if neither applies, you should be good to go.

Then again, Kevin makes a compelling case for the alternative.

I'm not a 403(b) person but I would go all-in for immediate entry in July. I'll do a 401(k) comparison - you allow immediate entry but categorically exclude part-time employees unless/until they work 1,000 hours. Person starts PT, they are in excluded class, so not eligible. Two months in they switch to full time, so longer in excluded class and enter immediately. As I said, not a 403(b) person but don't see your situation as any different - and this manner is certainly consistent with the spirit of the rules.

Richard, defined benefit plan maximum benefits cannot be exceeded, so I don't think there's much more that could be done directly via the plan, especially if ancillary tactics (life insurance) are taken after the QDRO is filed. However, this excess value in the plan does have value to F and his company and could be considered among all other assets when identifying and dividing - the trick is how to value. Good luck.

Sometimes it seems like the wild wild west out there the way a lot of small non-profits (and churches in particular) operate, and trying to explain the rules and get them to do things the right way as opposed to the easy way and the way they've always done it can be a big up hill battle - and it's just a lack of understanding from volunteers who take the path of least resistance. I don't think you are wrong. Administering payroll for someone else's employee(s) - not a problem, I guess, although who is listed as the employer (EIN, etc.) on the W-2? Considering that person as your employee for benefit purposes, especially retirement plan(s)? Big problem, as I see it, and would definitely dig in your heels to do it right (or have the other employer adopt as participating employer).

short-term deferrals, which are amounts paid soon after vesting, are generally exempt from most of 409A

Effen right you are!

Why are you not working with a provider for this?

Exactly. This is a missing participant. PBGC covered, I assume, because you did a post-dsitrib cert, so the benefit should have been turned over to the PBGC. It could not be forfeited just because you couldn't find the person, except maybe if this person went past NRD and benefits were due before plan termination and you couldn't find (if plan terms allow) - but even then I think DOL is very opinionated that you can't really do that.

Unless you carve out A's otherwise excludable early entries, I think you have to test coverage for A looking at everyone in A and B, and then for testing coverage in B you can exclude the under 21/1 employees in A and B. That is, you apply the eligibility criteria of the plan you are testing to the control group. If you have to aggregate, I think you use the most liberal eligibility requirements unless, again, you test OEs separately.

I would argue that there is initially one election - a lump sum - and then you see (independently) if permitted under the top 25 restrictions (401(a)(4) I believe) and under the 436 restrictions. In this case, I think 401(a)(4) precludes the lump sum.

I believe expanding/liberalizing eligibility is one of the permissible mid-year amendments for safe harbor plans.

If the eligibility computation period shifted to the plan (calendar) year, then eligibility requirements are satisfied at 12/31/2019 and the person enters the next entry date which I assume is 1/1. Plan document should be clear on that.

Sometimes, but rarely - I have seen it long ago but not recently - upon DB plan termination benefits are transferred (not rolled over) via trustee to trustee transfer (options were an annuity contract or a transfer w/o spousal consent). This almost never gets done because you then have to maintain the legacy annuity options in the DCP and get spousal consent to opt out of the QJSA. I would be surprised if this is your fact pattern, but just in case.

Allocation schedule is from the RK showing all the contributions allocated to participant accounts. Payroll report might only show salary deferrals (loan repayments, safe harbor and match are possibilities). Auditor wants to verify what was withheld for a participant was allocated to the participant.