CuseFan

and what is the "plan" that failed coverage - is it non-elective, 401(k) and/or 401(m)?

Ditto, and I've seen designs where babies (literally) were employees because they were paid for being in promotional adds for the company - although in those instances it was to have more non-benefiting HCEs to help pass testing rather than increase family benefits, but it could work that way too. As long as they get a W-2, actually work and the pay is reasonable (and they follow child labor laws), it's all good man.

You can allow a change if you have a new annuity starting date that is based on the employee's actual retirement post commencement of RMDs, but the plan needs to allow for new ASD.

Plans can mandate commencement of benefits upon the attainment of NRA. However, if that's not already in the plan, so a participant has the ability to defer commencement until actual retirement or possibly his/her RBD, I'm not sure if you can add that now, it may be considered a cutback, especially if actuarial increases are provided post-NRA.

Yeah, I thought of that after, was a little too quick on the submit button. Looked to see if there was any owner-only plan exception/exemption from TH rules but didn't find any.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/4041.8 Per the Code, it looks like you're ok to do this. PBGC's position on covered plans is different, but you don't have that issue here.

No, but suggest being very careful and diligent in tracking hours. Other thoughts - why not 5-year cliff vesting (is it a CBP)?

You can offset benefits payable to a participant for amounts that represent fraud against the plan - but not the employer, as you note. The trick here may be identifying the fraudulent contributions (and earnings thereon) and doing so in a timely manner. Check plan provisions to make sure such an offset is supported or not expressly forbidden. Below is some volume submitter language from Relius. That the case is currently in court and there is not a current judgment, holding up payment now might require a court order. Although by the time the participant could bring an ERISA based suit to pay the benefit I expect the embezzlement case would be resolved. (c) Exception for certain debts to Plan. Subsection (a) shall not apply to an offset to a Participant's accrued benefit against an amount that the Participant is ordered or required to pay the Plan with respect to a judgment, order, or decree issued, or a settlement entered into in accordance with Code Sections 401(a)(13)(C) and (D). I have also seen essentially what ESOP Guy described, where the participant embezzler agrees to pay restitution via distribution from their retirement plan account.

DOL may have subsequently calculated the penalty from 7/31/2017, the due date had it not been a short year, if the short plan year end wasn't picked up. I would continue to follow up with DOL and not file for the refund.

No and yes, or use to pay or reimburse final plan expenses.

Yes, according to the Pension Answer Book those shared employee rules still apply, so if someone works 1000+ hours for two or more employers sharing their services they are treated as doing so for all of those employers for purposes of coverage and nondiscrimination. The one physician with a plan would pass assuming there is sufficient employee coverage - and if a DBP be wary of minimum participation.

I generally do not want an HCE to have the highest MVAR and NAR within a permissible rate band, but if one is higher and the other is lower then I'm less concerned. Although with multiple rate bands for multiple HCEs I only try to push that envelope once.

I tend to agree. IRS is concerned with following the document and the timing of contributions for deduction purposes, which you appear to be OK on. DOL is tasked with labor law and ERISA rights, and it's labor law where the client went afoul.

I think documents in general allow for participating employers, whether affiliated or not, so it doesn't look like a document issue/failure to me unless the language was very particular to employers within a control group. If that is truly the case, then VCP might be the answer. The big issue to me is that as a multiple employer plan that each employer is deemed a single separate employer for purposes of coverage, nondiscrimination and tax deduction limits. So if you were running ADP/ACP and/or general testing on a total plan basis, then those tests are wrong. If properly re-run tests subsequently fail then you are definitely looking at VCP. 1983, really? Wow, hopefully the ownership changed over time (recently) so they were a CG or an ASG for much of that time. Good luck and Happy Thanksgiving!

Anyone who says the employer has discretion in providing the plan document in some form upon request is setting the employer up for a DOL audit and the $110/day penalty (or whatever the penalty is now) for refusing to provide ERISA-protected right to requested documents. This is CUT and DRIED.

Jim, a plan document may have a deferral cap as your wife's plan has AND a plan is not legally required to permit catch-up deferrals, but your wife's plan happens to allow. It's not a legal right, it is a "privilege" if you will, granted by the terms of the plan. BUT, the plan's record keeper and/or administrator are not following the Plan Document - that is your argument, not that they are doing something illegal.

Based on the SPD, she should be able to defer 15% of pay PLUS $6,000 in catch-up deferrals, the $18,000 limit is irrelevant to her since 15% of pay is less than $18,000. Not allowing is an operational defect for the plan.

I agree with you that his prior firm comp cannot count in establishing a 3-year average for 415 and that you look only at his "new" SE income.

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.