CuseFan

Apple's solution does bridge that gap, but if you do any filings, we both agree it starts with an amended 2016 return.

My personal opinion is as long as the tax treatment was proper and reported, ignore the 5500 issue. I might consider amending the the final return, accounting for this as a receivable/payable for 2016, but filing a 2018 return is just going to confuse everyone.

I agree with PP, distribute the portion of the loan attributable to the excess.

Coverage passes as employee is statutorily excluded, you have an owner-only plan that files the EZ.

No, the language in another plan, whether qualified or non-qualified (as is your example) cannot override the language in the 401(k) plan with respect how it should operate. For example, an employment agreement some new employee signs says he will be immediately eligible for the retirement plan while the plan document says there is a one year wait - which do you follow? The plan document. If this employer wants to exclude that income from the 401(k) plan compensation definition then it must do so by modifying that plan document, not some other plan document.

And for S-corp shareholders it has to be some basis of W-2, cannot include any K-1.

Here is a detailed resource plus a handy chart is attached. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/2013cpe_compensation.pdf Compensation Definitions.pdf

For an employee with a break in service I believe you ignore the break, so you'd count years 1, 2 and 4. I don't know if having no profit in year 3 could be considered a break, where you could similar, but I don't see why year 3 can't go into the 3-year average as a zero.

I think you count the aggregated service from all employers as service with all employers at which he worked. I would say he gets match in A based on deferrals to Plan A and match from B based on deferrals to Plan B. Similar to someone switching between an employer's union and non-union plan, the total service counts for both, but you don't duplicate benefits or provide all in one plan unless the plans explicitly provide (more likely in the DB world).

I think so. in your example, I presume, you could do the ABT on either basis as you choose and regardless, one would be on a different basis than how the rate groups are determined - so i conclude that rate groups and ABT need not be determined on the same measurement period basis. Same page? Thanks

When general testing for nondiscrimination, must you use the same measurement period (current year versus accrued to date) for your rate group determination and for the average benefits percentage? That is, can I determine accrual rates for rate groups on an accrued to date basis but calculate my average benefits percentage on a current accrual basis, because I don't have the DC balances, only current year contributions - or do I need to get balances and use same basis?

Exactly. Recent court cases have sided with former employees claiming benefits where the plan sponsor - even a successor plan sponsor - did not retain records that could refute the claim. At a minimum, sponsors and providers should be diligent about reporting SSA deletions when someone is paid out and retain all bank records pertaining to distributions. People get letters from SSA when they retire, telling them they may have a benefit from XYZ plan, so they go asking for it forgetting that they took a lump sum payout 20 years before. If the plan sponsor doesn't have proof of the pay out and the claimant doesn't just take their word for it, you could be faced with legal action.

If the Canadiens (hockey fan spelling) are living and working in Canada then yes, your non-resident alien exclusion should work. They could have a separate Canadian plan, if desired, the rules up there are different. Things get extremely complicated for Canadian citizens if they earn benefits in a US-based plan, so would highly recommend against that and continue to exclude as they do now - but make sure the plan document has that exclusion.

From the DB Answer Book - cites are the Heinz case, Rev Proc 2005-23, and 1.411(d)-3(a)(3). Defined Benefit Answer Book - Donovan, Young, and Alsguth,Q 30:55,May an employer change the types of employment covered by a suspension of benefits provision after an employee has already returned to work? Last Updated: 12/2017 No. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz [124 S. Ct. 2230 (2004)] that an amendment to the plan's suspension of benefit rules that applied to a retiree's benefits earned before the amendment's adoption was subject to the anti-cutback limitations of Code Section 411(d)(6). In response to this ruling, the IRS issued Revenue Procedure 2005-23 (and extended the date required to comply in Revenue Procedure 2005-76) to limit the effect of the Supreme Court ruling to a prospective basis. This revenue procedure contains guidelines for those companies who had plans with provisions in conflict with the Heinz decision to correct their defects. [ Rev. Proc. 2005-23, 2005-18 I.R.B. 991] This has also been added to the regulations in proposed form by Proposed Treasury Regulations Section 1.411(d)-3(a)(3).

if you do the allocation in that fashion, declare those amounts as the individual allocations, and then general test on contributions with permitted disparity, does that get you where you need to be? or if permitted disparity must be imputed at the SSWB that makes it not work?

Clearly that is an abusive application of an otherwise permissible design, one which IRS would be all over. If the plan had eligibility requirements so that it wasn't exclusively short-term, low-paid NHCEs benefiting, that's a little different. Using short-term low-paid NHCEs to pass testing itself is not an abusive practice targeted by IRS, but it's the exclusion of longer service, higher paid NHCEs, whether from coverage or participation, that IRS looks to shut down.

Did company A have a suspension of benefits provision? If it did not, then you cannot add one to those benefits. An SoB can only be added to prospective participants/benefits.

Happy 59 1/2! Last year I hit 55 and a co-worker innocently enough said, "now you're eligible for early retirement", to which i responded, "what're you trying to tell me?"

it could be they are waiting for d-letter but the one owner doesn't want to wait. i think paying that now but paying everyone else later (after d-letter, if that's the case) is probably a BRF issue.

it's contingent on a salary deferral, still think it's a match. i think the only way it's not a match is if the 5% deferral is mandatory (possibly as a condition of employment) - you have to do 5% to be in the plan, can't do anything less.

Agree w/MoJo, can't violate plan because CBA says something different, but should amend plan to comply with CBA to avoid labor issue. Need to check how far back the difference goes and how plan has been administered - to determine if a simple amendment now will be sufficient or maybe an EPCRS filing is warranted.

does it matter? the 3% SH satisfies your TH minimum and is fully vested.

Make no mistake, DOL puts the onus on maintaining complete and accurate records on the employer, and any situation like this where the employer is lacking records must be resolved in the participant's favor, and court cases have affirmed.

I pay NYS SDI from my wages and it is not pre-tax in any fashion, except it could be deducted as a SALT on my Federal tax return, before tax reform that is!

i would agree - these expenses are related to the event (the funeral) but not directly associated therewith.