CuseFan

Great question and now very relevant as more "specialized" investments appear headed for 401(k) plans, like hedge funds and crypto.

or ignored what they were likely told at the start (assuming the plan termination process was fully explained at the onset)

Better call Saul.

Interesting. Thinking about Berkshire Hathaway and all it's wholly owned subsidiaries. I'm sure they have teams of attorneys, internal and external, who are experts at the control group, affiliated service group, and QSLOB rules. Guess I shouldn't complain when a colleague asks me to opine on a control group question!

Flattered, I occasionally get things right, you know, blind squirrel!

Isn't that trillion? The 7-9 zeros are the millions with 10-12 then billions so next comes trillions.

IRC Section 401(a)(4) is a very brief paragraph that says contributions and benefits cannot discriminate in favor of HCEs. The regulations start similarly and then say (I'm paraphrasing) that a 401(k) plan satisfies 401(a)(4) by passing the ADP test and a 401(m) plan satisfies 401(a)(4) by passing the ACP test. In that regard, 401(a)(4) is all encompassing, if you will, for nondiscrimination. The 5500-SF instructions ask if plan was permissively aggregated to pass coverage and then state if so, must also be aggregated for nondiscrimination. If you have to aggregate a 401(k) and/or 401(m) component to satisfy coverage then clearly you need to answer yes. Even though the legal requirements include the converse, the instructions do not explicitly mention that scenario. One could argue that since you aggregated to satisfy nondiscrimination that you had to aggregate for coverage and you get to the same place, but I can also see the flip side. The reality of the matter is that if two plans would satisfy coverage individually but were aggregated for nondiscrimination, they're certainly going to satisfy coverage in the aggregate. The 5500 question appears to be concerned with coverage rather than nondiscrimination, so maybe aggregating an ADP and/or ACP test doesn't warrant a yes for that. I'd be interested in other opinions on that.

Agreed. If the income does not flow through to Schedule SE (which references K1 box 14) and is not subjected to SECA taxes then it cannot be earned income from self-employment.

The requirement is that if you aggregate plans to satisfy coverage you must also satisfy nondiscrimination testing (ADP, ACP and/or general 401(a)(4) as applicable) for that aggregated "plan" and vice versa. In both instances you describe you would check yes.

The annuity starting date for a lump sum is the date that all requirements for issuing the payment have been met, including notices, spousal consent and other timing issues. If these were cash outs under the terms of the plan - so if everyone received their 402(f) notice at least 30 days before 12/26, then I think you can have that as an ASD. If administrative delay pushes that into January, I think that's OK. February is questionable. I don't know where in the regs, but it is the definition of annuity starting date that I think you want to reference.

YES! So I've had ERPA for a while, #373, and had successfully renewed twice before w/o any issue. The second time was w/o a PTIN as I let mine lapse when they were no longer required. My latest renewal in 2024 on my 21-23 cycle hit the same problem, all of a sudden they were looking at credits tied to PTINs (which they no longer required!). I too had accumulated a majority of credits through ASPPA and ASEA on-demand webcasts which stated they provided ERPA credit. However, the completion certificates that were issued by the website upon passing the quiz were not sufficient for ERPA documentation. I provided copies of all those non-compliant certificates to ASPPA customer service (I think) requesting the IRS program number. They re-issued ERPA compliant certificates to me for all those 2021-2023 sessions. There was one that they found did not count for ERPA. Certificates were signed by Chris DeGrassi, Chief of Retirement Education - all on 7/18/2024. Whoever told you they were not ERPA eligible probably just didn't want to be bothered. You only mentioned 2021 as an issue? ASPPA gave me 2021-2023, so I don't know how 2021 becomes an issue now. I was told at the time that they were rectifying their website/process to "fix" this deficiency but looking at later 2024 sessions (under someone else's signature) the certificates are the old version. My guess is they figure there aren't enough ERPAs out there and no new ones possible, so why bother with the time and expense for a fix. I think IRS would have accepted non-ERPA certificates and an itemized list of sessions with their IRS program numbers, but ASPPA provided compliant certificates. If you can't get satisfaction from ASPPA for 2021, send me an email with the courses you took in 2021 and if I took any of the same I can give you the IRS program numbers that were on my certificates. Another IRS issue I encountered was that you needed 66 non-ethics credits and they only considered 6 ethics credits at 2 per year - so anything beyond that didn't count and was wasted credit, even though neither Circular 230 nor the 8554-EP form or instructions stated such. Since I had 72 with 7 or 8 ethics credits I had to take a course in 2024 to fulfill my 21-23 renewal requirement. After all that, and being told I was renewed (which I've kept the email as proof), I never received my updated card in the mail, which supposedly they mailed out three times and verified the correct address. The same thing happened for my prior renewal, no card received in the mail, including a supposed second attempt then. I gave up on getting a new card, keep using my ERPA number and haven't had any issues in that regard. My next renewal comes up in 2027 and probably won't even bother. Anyway, the last two issues are just me venting. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks it's a concerted effort to hasten the elimination of the ERPA designation. Good luck and I'll help you if I can.

Agree. A VCP requirement is that you must completely fix the defect, so submitting only PPA restatement doesn't go the distance.

And that's why retirement plan practitioners avoid consulting on healthcare! Thank you Brian for being the healthcare guru for this forum, when reading a question I can always tell when it will elicit a Brian answer.

Not sure about a PT but certainly an operational defect by not following the terms of the plan and the deferral election.

BPAS has a product as well.

PSP can have in-service. A rollover to a Roth IRA is taxable but there is no 20% tax withholding because the distribution is rolled over. The taxable nature of the distribution should be evidenced by the 1099R that is issued for the distribution.

I think we use PBI as well.

Yes, thank you David, and thank you Lois for pointing that out and making the rest of us feel like rookies!

For solo plan I don't fiduciary issue is concern and would park in cash/money market. Even if plan was participant directed and had fiduciary concerns, I think investing the suspense in a non-volatile fund would be prudent - IMHO.

I seem to recall this being asked (and answered, not by me) before in this forum and thought that SEPs do not count for such purpose as they have no such annual filing requirements regardless of the amount of assets. I suggest searching.

I thought everyone who worked at least 3 years making more than a certain amount had to be covered - not the 410(b) rules. Also, if on the 5305 model cannot have another non-SEP plan, so isn't that also an issue?

Sorry Peter, I didn't even see your response as I just saw and responded to the follow-up quote/question to me or I would have just referenced your more eloquent explanation of the issue. Thank you.

Attorneys, IRS. However, the Windsor same sex spouse application is/was limited to those provisions governed by tax law rather than ERISA. Since nonelecting church plans are not subject to PRSA and QJSA rules, death benefits could be provided solely to opposite sex married couples but would have to recognize a same sex spouse for purposes of applying minimum distribution rules and rollover rules.

You can pick and choose provided the amendment has substance (likely, since all are active employees) and you are not using average benefits to satisfy coverage (likely not a reasonable classification) - but OK if your general test needs to pass with average benefits.

Plan X is not part of the Required Aggregation Group if it is not aggregated with the other plans to satisfy coverage or nondiscrimination. "Required Aggregation Group" means (a) each qualified plan of the Employer in which at least one Key Employee participates or participated at any time during the Plan Year containing the Determination Date or any of the four preceding Plan Years (regardless of whether the Plan has terminated), and (b) any other qualified plan of the Employer which enables a plan described in (a) to meet the requirements of Code sections 401(a)(4) or 410. Note you could permissively aggregate X with the other plans to make the group not top-heavy, if that is a possibility, but then you must satisfy both coverage and nondiscrimination within that group. "Permissive Aggregation Group" means the Required Aggregation Group of plans, plus any other plan or plans of the Employer which, when considered as a group with the Required Aggregation Group, would continue to satisfy the requirements of Code sections 401(a)(4) and 410.