CuseFan

Generally you use the first day of the current (or possibly subsequent) plan year, because the document should have embedded effective dates for various PPA provisions.

mandatory disaggregation between union and non-union employees so you essentially treat as separate plans for coverage and nondiscrimination regardless

Correct.

Look at all the stock drop lawsuits. I believe a couple involve a single publicly traded company stock fund that used to be, but then was no longer, an employer security with respect to the plan (because of a spin-off/sale transaction). Not sure if the Deere case was one of those. Basically, if ABC company wants to offer a Facebook only stock fund, then ABC fiduciaries have an ongoing responsibility to monitor and evaluate Facebook as a prudent investment for the plan.

As someone who also was a church treasurer/finance chair for far longer than I wanted to be, my understanding is that clergy are generally considered self employed for some purposes (such as SECA - self employed FICA and Medicare) but are considered employees for other purposes, including retirement plan participation. My wife was a UMC pastor for a number of years, she had to pay SECA but participated in the Conference retirement plans and could not do a solo/self-employed plan. But I think it also depends on the facts and circumstances. A "traveling" pastor who fills in at various churches across denominations for a speaking fee is probably self employed for all purposes. There is a great/extensive IRS publication - which I don't have any more - google it (517) which has all the various tax rules regarding clergy and I highly recommend it if you deal with clergy - saved me many a battle with new clergy coming from churches that did things wrong, but I digress. Good luck.

A hard frozen plan - or any DB plan in which no HCE benefits - satisfies 401(a)(26) automatically, provided you aren't giving any cost of living increases or adjusting benefits for increases in the 415 limit. You shouldn't need to do this.

"deferred" (not referred) - so paid as of the RBD as opposed to the first calendar distribution year (attainment of 70 1/2)

and don't forget, even if there is a last day rule, there may be exceptions to that (and hours) for death, disability and retirement - so if you had any of those occurrences I think you're precluded from amending the formula.

I would say no. This is similar to an old scenario where employers automatically moved terminated participant balances into a MM fund. The IRS deemed this a detriment/impediment (don't remember their exact wording) to an employee's consent which invalidated their "voluntary" election to a distribution. That is, you can't coerce someone to take a distribution by treating them less favorably than current employees. However, if the stock fund is an ESOP, I believe you can limit ownership to employees IF the corporate bylaws restrict ownership to employees of the corporation.

Payments from a 409A plan that are taxable to a participant could be wages, depending on plan definition. Salary deferrals (or other contributions) to a NQDC 409A plan would not be considered compensation unless the plan specifically allowed for their inclusion but that would be custom language, not a safe harbor definition, and could create testing issues because qualified allocations would be based on compensation higher than statutory/testing compensation. The salary deferral add-back does not include 409A NQDC deferrals. Also note that a person's 409A salary deferrals, could take them from HCE to NHCE.

Which territory? Possibly Puerto Rico or US Virgin Islands?

Ditto - but thought you were going in the other direction with your question, because we have a one person plan where the one person is the sole employee of the incorporated business but the business owner is not an employee. That plan is not an EZ filer and it is subject to PBGC coverage and premiums - an odd but interesting situation.

So this is general rate group testing of a non-elective employer contribution, and not ACP testing of a match? Either way, you have no basis to return HCE deferrals. If it's the former, you have to increase contributions for NHCEs to pass. If it's the latter, then correction is a refund of excess/failing HCE match.

exactly - must include all employment with noted exceptions. can only start from participation date for those in the plan on the effective date (excluding service before there was a plan).

Yes, the plan is permitted to allow the participant to waive the QPSA and name a different beneficiary with spousal consent. Here is Relius VS language from a plan whose only death benefit is the QPSA. (a) Qualified Pre‑Retirement Survivor Annuity (QPSA). Unless otherwise elected as provided below, a Vested Participant who dies before the Annuity Starting Date and who has a surviving spouse shall have the death benefit paid to the surviving spouse in the form of a Pre‑Retirement Survivor Annuity. The Participant's spouse may direct that payment of the Pre‑Retirement Survivor Annuity commence within a reasonable period after the Participant's death (but not later than the month in which the Participant would have attained the Earliest Retirement Age under the Plan if the Participant dies on or before the Earliest Retirement Age). If the spouse does not so direct, payment of such benefit will commence at the time the Participant would have attained the later of Normal Retirement Age or age 62. However, the spouse may elect a later commencement date, subject to the rules specified in Section 5.9. (b) Election to waive QPSA. Any election to waive the Pre‑Retirement Survivor Annuity before the Participant's death must be made by the Participant in writing (or in such other form as permitted by the Internal Revenue Service) during the election period and shall require the spouse's irrevocable consent in the same manner provided for in Section 5.7(a)(2). Further, the spouse's consent must acknowledge the specific nonspouse Beneficiary. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the nonspouse Beneficiary need not be acknowledged, provided the consent of the spouse acknowledges that the spouse has the right to limit consent only to a specific Beneficiary and that the spouse voluntarily elects to relinquish such right.

Agree, MP you have funding deficiency (reported on the 5500) and don't forget the excise tax liability.

I have amended individually designed pension plans to do exactly that - but be careful what you wish for, because along comes a different acquisition where you don't want to do that and unless you amend to exclude before closing, it's too late, they're in. I don't know how this fits in pre-approved plans. If the sponsor knows they are acquiring all similar targets for which they want to credit service within a certain time period, I expect you could craft the provision to say all companies whose assets were acquired by the plan sponsor between xx/xx/xxxx and yy/yy/yyyy.

I would think/hope their partnership agreement spells out the (profit sharing) cost allocation. Not sure about ADP/ACP test, but my guess is no because they are not benefiting/eligible to benefit. If an employee was on leave all year and had no comp, but was not terminated, I assume they would not be included in test. This seems similar to me, but just my opinion.

NQDC payments to a qualified plan participant can be plan compensation (unless otherwise excluded by the document) if paid while still employed - hence the document language you cite. Remember, IRS position is that compensation paid after the employment relationship has severed is not plan compensation except for "post-severance compensation (PSC)" as defined in the plan and the Code, again, reason for your specific plan language. PSC must be pay the person was entitled to receive had employment continued. Since this payment was triggered by termination of employment it cannot be compensation for plan purposes. This is different than say a 457(f) arrangement, where a person may get a payout at a certain age if still employed (i.e., they vest), in which case such payout would potentially be plan compensation unless excluded (per your cite) or not otherwise covered under the plan's definition.

I think you all just spent more than $50 worth of professional time trying to figure out where to report $50, which you could easily explain to any auditor any decision you made without them caring.

Yes you can do this and it can work both ways, but each plan's language must provide. By way of example, I was part of a group that was spun out of A and acquired by B. Not only did B recognize past service with A for eligibility and vesting, A recognized future service with B for vesting in A's plan, important for those not already vested at the time of transaction. The one condition was you didn't take a distribution from A's plan.

I don't admin DC plans, but I thought the highest outstanding balance consideration only applied to the $50,000 - so someone could not take additional loans to maintain a continual $50,000 loan balance - but does not apply to the 50% vested balance limitation.

Of course none of those recommendations work if the borrowing-fiend is the owner of the plan sponsor, but they're never the ones to push the limits on administrative burdens!

yes

Agree with David, why would not you test first and know that your design will work rather than scramble afterwards when you find out there is/might be a problem? How would you include in the amendment? If after all the elections are made and we test, if fail, then HCE ER elections are null and void? So the benefit does not accrue for an HCE until testing is performed and passes, which would have to be done by a specified time. Maybe that flies.