CuseFan

Even if all plan benefits were distributed as lump sums at once, participant can rollover all but the ESOP lump sum.

This sounds more like it should be a Friday afternoon friendly discussion over a couple of beers or joints (depending on which state you live in and which side of the argument you fall) rather than a middle of the week heated philosophical debate. Take my word for it, it's more fun my way!

Certainly is, although it's still 110% of current liability, which for this purpose was never updated for PPA, so you just need to be reasonable and consistent. For a CBP, it's not account balances.

agreed, although many plans now default to the beneficiary designation automatically being revoked upon divorce.

I thought it was Yankees fans you were allowed to discriminate against! The ACP test must consider everyone who would be eligible to receive a match during the year had they made an elective deferral, so Red Sox fans are excluded. As all agree.

I think an attempt to find and contact the husband must be made and, if unable to locate, follow the plan's provisions for inability to locate participant or beneficiary when benefits are due. If still legally married on the date of death with no spousal waiver/consent, I don't see how the benefit can be paid to the children.

Financial planning implications aside, if a participant rolls from an IRA into a qualified plan they now have a qualified plan rollover account in the plan (not an IRA). Provided the PSP allows for loans from rollover accounts this is permissible.

The Employer may not be treating the person as an employee, and the terms of the plan may then call for exclusion, in which case you cannot cover even if the appropriate determination (or your determination) is that the person is indeed an employee. This is not a statutory exclusion for coverage and nondiscrimination but an exclusion through the definition of eligible employee. Here is Relius volume submitter language. If you have a coverage failure by excluding this person, then you have a demographic failure to fix, but if not, then (s)he should continue to be excluded unless and until the Employer treats as an employee and pays via W-2. (b) An individual shall not be an Eligible Employee if such individual is not reported on the payroll records of the Employer as a common law employee. In particular, it is expressly intended that individuals not treated as common law employees by the Employer on its payroll records and out‑sourced workers, are neither Employees nor Eligible Employees, and are excluded from Plan participation even if a court or administrative agency determines that such individuals are common law employees and not independent contractors. However, this paragraph shall not apply to partners or other Self‑Employed Individuals unless the Employer treats them as independent contractors.

compliance issues are the same

Other concern - even if you can aggregate these individual partner plans for them to satisfy coverage (and nondiscrimination), then you also have to satisfy benefits, rights and features. Why are there individual partner plans? if these partner plans have features not available to NHCEs, such as self directed brokerage accounts, loans, in-service distributions, or whatever, then they are discriminatory regardless of contribution levels, NDT results, etc.

The employer must file Form 5310-A to claim QSLOB status after which you would treat each QSLOB as a single employer for coverage and nondiscrimination. Who the employer deems is most qualified (ERISA counsel or CPA) to help them make that determination is up to the employer. However, if legal counsel is willing and able to render an opinion, I would say that carries more weight than a CPA expressing their opinion. Note geographic differences are only part of the QSLOB criteria.

Partial termination is a facts and circumstances situation but is presumed if there is a 20% + reduction in active participants. If there are enough new participants so the net reduction is not 20% then should be no issue. If the employer can demonstrate that this is normal turnover and that net additions/subtractions over time are relatively stable, I also think you're OK, but IRS/DOL may ask for that demonstration. The spirit of the rule is to protect non-vested participants from losing benefits due to employer initiated actions to reduce workforce - mass layoffs, plant closures, etc. I don't think you have that here, I think it's the nature of the business, but if the dollars are large enough (forfeitures vs. full vesting) then the sponsor may want to seek legal counsel for an opinion.

Also, I suggest talking with your accountant or financial adviser. If the value of the stock has appreciated significantly over the years, you could reap some significant tax benefits by taking your distribution in shares of stock rather than "cashing out" and/or rolling over.

As a 403(b), only ACP testing would be a concern, but I agree that providing a match only to a subset of participants could not be a safe harbor match. They would have to physically have a new/separate plan for new hires (and pass coverage).

In these gray areas we are providing clients with the PBGC criteria and asking them to either make their own determination (who knows their business better?) or to request a determination of coverage from PBGC. However, if there isn't an existing DBP, then PBGC won't rule, and if the question of coverage is one of the decision criteria in whether or not to adopt a plan, potential sponsors and their providers are left making educated guesses. If you're looking for an educated guess here, my opinion is that a licensed speech therapist would be professional services.

If the plans are aggregated for nondiscrimination (and coverage) to enable the CBP to pass, and the contributions required in the DCP to pass the NDT are not made, then it is the CBP that fails 401(a)(4) nondiscrimination and w/o correction would be disqualified. The DCP would not be DQ'd on its own if there is no discretionary PS contribution because that plan does not need to be aggregated. However, if there is a SH and/or other type of contribution required under the terms of the plan and not made then that is a qualification issue. Note that not making the CB contribution does not mean that the plan defined contribution credits do not get allocated - so there's no "out" here by claiming HCEs didn't get any allocation/benefit.

code 2 is for exceptions so yes, i would think so

ok, so attach Sched A and report properly, why the reluctance?

Here's some other potential issues: IRS may still insist on those missed RMDs being taken from the IRA even if they waive the excise taxes. If they don't require that correction and accept the payments from PS as IRA RMDs, the question is whether the PS distributions were enough to cover both. That is, did a prior year IRA RMD amount paid from PS reduce the PS balance used to determine a subsequent year PS RMD?

unless it would otherwise qualify for EZ (owners/spouses only) filing, you have a filing requirement regardless of asset size. and if it would qualify for EZ filing, you have a filing requirement due to asset size.

Austin, is there a question here? Y and Z are not a CG, as you note. As they are not service organizations, I don't think there is an ASG either. Or is there another question?

Which instructions? I just pulled this from 2016 5500-EZ instructions. Who Does Not Have To File Form 5500-EZ You do not have to file Form 5500-EZ for the 2016 plan year for a one-participant plan if the total of the plan's assets and the assets of all other one-participant plans maintained by the employer at the end of the 2016 plan year does not exceed $250,000, unless 2016 is the final plan year of the plan. For more information on final plan years, see Final Return later. Clearly you have to file for the CBP. And if these are not owner-only plans it doesn't matter what the assets are, you have a filing requirement.

By "owner" do you mean of the business? So RMDs were required from both PSP and IRA - but only taken from PSP? Echoing the above - no "correction protocol" for IRA except to take out the missed RMDs and pay the excise tax. It MAY be possible to petition the IRS to get them to waive the excise tax if this person took enough from the PSP to cover both, so the right taxes were ultimately paid for those years, but I have no experience with IRS in this area and don't know if they're reasonableness/sympathy extends to IRA compliance.

even IRS would have to admit the differences are immaterial

TIAA-CREF not performing any function related to plan compliance is par for the course from what I've seen over the years.