CuseFan

Let me qualify my answer by saying I do not practice in DC administration, but as a practical matter, I would record those residual amounts as distributions payable as of 12/31 and not include those assets or people in the year-end numbers, and make sure that the residual amounts have been paid out or take action now to do so. This was easy to do in the old manual balance forward days, not so sure in these press a button get a filing environments. JMHO

ACP test fails and we are now past the end of the following plan year - the statutory correction period. Therefore, sponsor is doing the one-for-one method via self correction. Correction method and plan document allow for forfeiture of non-vested match, but vested as of when - the end of the plan year to which the excess was attributable or as of the date of corrective distribution (for those vested)?

https://www.asppa.org/Portals/2/06-11-14 Presentation.pdf see beginning at slide 88. although not formal guidance, these were based on IRS responses at previous ASPPA conference.

Unless the last day (and/or hours) requirement is waived for death, disability and/or retirement, in which case someone could (activity would have to be checked) satisfy entitlement to a contribution very early in the year and effectively kill the ability to amend the formula.

good call!

Agree with Larry that the plan's general last day requirement would not apply here but that the plan could be amended for such an exclusion. A last day requirement is not a statutory exclusion so you have same coverage testing, but potentially fewer employees benefiting. Person is still employed and entitled to top heavy, as noted, if applicable - and this based on all pay, not just non-union pay, which would apply for safe harbor and gateway purposes.

The PA should issue the two checks as noted. The participant can refuse to cash the RMD check but might change his mind if/when he realizes he AND the IRS will get 1099 that shows taxable distribution - and make sure he knows that whether or not he cashes the check doesn't affect its being taxable to him.

Absolutely if someone was working on 12/31 and that was their last day, then they are entitled. Note that 12/31/2017 was a Sunday. If someone was working 12/29, and that was the last business day that the employer was open during the year on which employees could be working, that is your last day - was just reading that yesterday.

First, I think you should have paid the estate a lump sum, either the year after death or within 5 years after death. The rules should be explicit in the document. Payments to an estate cannot be rolled over. This was a simple situation that someone over complicated.

When REA 1984 was passed to provide for spousal protection, defined benefit plans were still very prevalent. Now, with DCPs being the primary source of most people's retirement, it may be appropriate to revisit additional protections. I don't know if QJSA rules for DCPs is the answer, but in this instance - forget about the filed for divorce part - participant could have taken LS and jumped town with his mistress before his wife even knew he and his retirement funds were gone.

Absolutely correct - if you have HCEs in 20+ tier and NHCEs in a lower tier (under 15 gets no more?) then you have an HCE getting a higher rate then an NHCE and violate the SH rules.

Except for mistake of fact rules - but those are different from "we screwed up."

You have continued interest and, if still employed, service credits post NRA. Suspension of benefits notice can get you out of actuarial increases, but only if still employed. Be careful, because low interest credits alone may not be sufficient post-NRA adjustments per IRS.

Or maybe we're all supposed to rely on the new-found integrity of a barred individual that leads him/her to refrain from serving as a fiduciary because, you know, it was just an honest mistake the last time....

I agree. I think the only time you're required to include compensation while not a participant (other than when the plan says to) is for top heavy.

Client has integrated final pay plan that they plan to freeze at end of current year. However, they would also like to credit all active participants as of that time with an additional year of service. So if someone has 20.667 years of credited service (they use elapsed time), they would be bumped up to 21.667. Plan satisfies coverage and integrated formula is 401(l) compliant (1% /.5% at $4800). Does giving everyone an additional YOS mess up my integration and force me to general test, or am I still safe harbor because everyone gets it? Any other potential traps for concern?

First worry is you have to pass coverage. So if D & E are failing coverage on their own, the next logical step is to aggregate them to see if D/E combined can pass coverage. If so, then you have to test D/E combined for ADP and ACP. But, if E doesn't have a match, not sure how you can get D match to satisfy coverage. Prospectively you can make HCEs ineligible for match, but that doesn't fix the past. If E has a discretionary match provision, a match to E could make fix the coverage problem. If not, an 11g amendment that adds a match to E may the only way to fix.

IRC Section 401(a)(11) spells that out.

I agree with Mike, but the plan termination will create a subsequent RMD for this person once the distribution is rolled over, assuming it goes to an IRA and not another plan of the employer. However, that becomes her responsibility and not the plan's (or yours).

Do ESOPs get an exception to the requirement that all plan assets must be distributed timely (generally within a year) after plan termination?

i don't see a problem in general, especially if it's only a couple of payroll periods - deferrals come out correct in the end, as does take home pay and tax withholding. HOWEVER, if you have matching contributions and they are calculated on a payroll period basis, the plan sponsor may need to make manual adjustments.

Again, depending on what the document says, maybe explain (threaten) that any unclaimed balances at the time of final distribution get turned over to the state?

Takes a taxable distribution from IRA of $X and then makes a tax deductible PS contribution of $X? Why? Why not just roll from IRA to PSP if you want the funds in that plan (for a loan maybe)? If under age 59 1/2, IRA incurs penalty tax, creating a losing net position. Not to mention the need for sufficient earned income from business activity because the IRA distribution is not. You say it's already done, so questions are moot, but I'm sure I'm not the only one extremely curious as to why someone would think this was a good idea.

The elected form, but yes, all should be in document.

Doesn't look like management company relationship, and certainly not professional services, so no ASG and unless parents/sons stock ownership attributes to the other group (which I don't believe it does for this purpose), no CG. I believe the accountant is correct.