CuseFan

He should also know that solo plans with loans are an IRS audit magnet (if the plan has assets sufficient to file).

The golden age of pensions only existed in the large industrial employer and unionized space, so it's not like the majority of American workers had one. Now, the only active (unfrozen) pensions seem to be in financial services and the small tax-deferral type cash balance, but those almost never provide lifetime annuity income. And the large active financial services industry pensions are mostly cash balance as well, so those with lump sums don't necessarily provide lifetime income in practice. As you note, the old rules could be harsh - and even the post ERISA rules (which the aforementioned class-year vesting was still around until TRA-87 I believe) were no bargains. I came in post-ERISA but I remember 15-year vesting schedules (but they were graded starting at 5 years). Forfeiture upon pre-retirement death, no spousal protections, etc. - all those were improved post-ERISA. But, back then, most employees usually stayed with an employer for their career, or maybe changed jobs once or twice during their 40-45 year career. Then the corporate raiders and over funded plan terminations took over in the mid to late 80's and the loyalty/social contract between employer and employee was broken forever as cost-shifting ushered in the 401(k) plan as a replacement benefit instead of a supplemental benefit. Hence the need for more protections and shorter vesting schedules and the plethora of employee notices and disclosures. Sometimes you need a good soap box rant and a stroll down memory lane - but as Billy Joel sang in Keepin' the Faith, the good ole days weren't always good and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems. peace out!

I don't think the order matters, because there are lots of plans that make quarterly contributions for the current year but then have a 9/15 contribution for the prior year.

The plan is obligated to make the payment. The unresponsive participant's failure to cash the checks (assuming you know they are being received) does not change that obligation nor the tax liability. Explaining this to the participant may help.

Agreed. The only time you are allowed to remove forfeitures from a DC plan and give back to employer, if my memory serves me correctly, is 415 suspense/forfeitures upon plan termination - not something that happens every day.

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.