casey72

I disagree with this. If it's an asset purchase, the seller will continue on and can maintain their plan with no impact on the buyer's plan (old or new) whatsoever.

In my experience, rigorously and carefully following ERISA 503 claims procedures, including explaining every reason for a denial, often results in a further flow of information.
 

It doesn’t say “first” or “up until”.  You’re adding those things. Things generally happen in order. 
 
let’s say someone makes $2,350,000 per year and defers 1% of pay each paycheck monthly. The match formula is 100% up to 5% of pay. 
 
The person would defer $1,958.33 each paycheck and receive a match of the same. Again assuming the document is not written stupidly, that would continue during the year. The payroll would need to be setup so that deferrals stop when reaching the 402(g) limit (not the comp limit). It would also need to be setup to stop the match when it reaches $17,500 because that is 5% of $350,000 and the maximum allowable match. At the end, the $350,000 comp limit is applied. But it’s not required to be the first $350,000 earned. 

It wasn't my client but if my memory was the IRS or the DOL took the position that the first filing wasn't complete and rejected the amendment.  Sorry, I don't recall the details better but that event is what made management here change our somewhat casual willingness to file without an audit report and amend later.   

Yes, they have.  It hasn't happened a lot but we have had clients get caught in this.  We no longer recommend they do this but file late and DFVCP file.  The fines under that program are so small compared to if the 5500 gets declared late.   We will do the file and amend later but they have to give us written direction so we can raise that as a defense if they get hit and come looking to collect from our firm.  

No.
I filed a VCP application on March 1, 2023, and received a Compliance Statement on February 18, 2025. By contrast, I filed a different application on December 7, 2020, and received a Compliance Statement on January 28, 2021. Both were nonamender failures.

ahhh to be so idealistic.....

Some plans are drafted to require the entire distribution to be repaid in order for forfeitures to be restored.
Just because the plan won't accept a rollover of the Roth IRA doesn't mean the participant can't repay it. Participant could repay with funds outside of IRA. 

It's odd, it actually says they can file by paper for the 2024 taxable year. It doesn't say that filers can do so for the 2023 taxable year!

I agree that plans should pay the excise tax on a timely basis. File the 8868 (requesting 6-month extension) with the payment by paper and hope this is all worked out by January 2025!

I agree with MWeddell. I tend to treat disability definition as protected if it impacts vesting, withdrawal rights, distribution rights, etc.  If the "new" definition is clearly and unambiguously easier for a participant to meet then there's no issue.