Kac1214

Thanks, I tried the search first but my results are always so broad that they are unhelpful. Will try again. I learned a bit more on search and found two threads. Posting links here in case anyone else interested: Merged plan Form 5500 requirement - Form 5500 - BenefitsLink Message Boards Plan merger and final 5500 - 1/1 merger date - Form 5500 - BenefitsLink Message Boards

Company A buys Company B and merges the Plans effective 1/1/2025. Assets of B are liquidated on 12/31/2024 and received by Plan A on 1/2/2025. Would you complete Plan B 5500 with transfer out and ending balance of 0.00 on a final 12/31/2024 5500? Or would you file a 5500 for January 1 - 2 and show transfer out to 0.00 on Final 2025 5500? If the 2024 Forms for A and B were already filed without recognizing the transfer, would you amend the return(s) and if so, in what manner? If Transfer Out is shown on 2024 Form for Plan B, when would you show on Plan A 5500? On the 2024 Form or the 2025 Form? Thanks

If this was not SH, they would not have to 3% for TH any longer, correct?

If you have a tiered match, it has to decrease as the tier increases so matching the first 4% at 0 and then the next 2% at any rate is not allowed.

With Secure 2.0, the SIMPLE can end mid-year if replaced with a 401k SH Plan. If they added a DB after the change, would that still be a VCP issue? Seems like it was not addressed and would be a problem if the DB was added in 2024

There really are times in life when it is cost effective to pay an attorney for advice and guidance. They can actually save you a lot of money.

Consider the opposite situation, someone contributes 12% in the 1st 6 months and then stops the rest of the year. They would still get true up and seem to be at odds with the client's goal.

What do they want to happen to the vesting of that group of people? Put that in the document. You should also ensure that any unallocated forfeitures from the prior plan are cleared before the merger.

Doesn't document say that if you terminated with 0% vested balance, you forfeited on termination (ie, deemed to have received distribution of 0% on termination)? From FTW CB Document For purposes of this Section, if the value of a Participant's vested Accrued Benefit is zero, the Participant shall be deemed to have received a distribution of such vested Accrued Benefit.

We are still having issues, anyone else?

Why not take $50k loans for the doctors from the 401k plan (assuming they have enough to do so)?

How about an existing PS-Only Plan being amended to add a 401k feature? I would think this would not have to be auto enrolled since the Plan is grandfathered but could also see guidance saying differently. Any thoughts?

Thanks for the response. As for testing, I have not seen any census data for the proposed acquisition(s). Currently, it is a very small employer so if there are not any OEEs, coverage may be an issue with any exclusions.

I have a client who is starting to grow through acquisitions. Client sponsors a SH 401k. They have purchased a Company (Stock purchase not Asset). New firm has a SIMPLE. I know there are transition rules that allow this arrangement to continue through the end of 2023. They are about to complete another acquisition (or more) as Asset purchases. The target has a 401k and they want to allow that new staff to join when acquired. I believe the SIMPLE has to continue and that staff should not be eligible/contribute to 401k If they amend the current Plan to recognize the new group(s), don't they lose the 410b6c exclusion that allowed the first acquisition to complete the SIMPLE for 2023? Can we amend to only allow the asset purchases to enter the Plan early? Any guidance is appreciated!

Years ago, had a client in CA that did not have separate EIN/TIN and CA was very aggressive in getting client to pay taxes the state felt were due from the retirement account since it had the same EIN as employer. It was painful to resolve so it would be worth getting the accounts correct IMO

I agree it would work but would you really need Safe Harbor with such a generous match?

To reiterate, it is the Plan Document that they are asking us to provide a wet signature for. @Peter Guliathank you for the cite!

Is anyone else getting push back from any record keeper regarding e-signed plan documents? Nationwide is telling us that they have to wet signatures and are not accepting our e-signed versions. I know that other RKs send their documents out using e-signing so this has to just be Nationwide. Thanks for any feedback

No, I have not. It seems like the Form is wrong to me but it has not been updated since 12-2020.

I think that auto enrollment and escalation are great additions to a plan and do make a huge difference in retirement readiness. My concerns with it are in the implementation and following through by payroll and record keepers. They tout the 360 degree connection make this seamless but find failures to implement timely or change rates across all platforms and payroll plus mistakes between Roth and traditional. This results in a lot of effort to correct and explain. Great concept but the devil is in the details of the process which has not been great.

I always thought that if the kids were in the Plan than 5500-EZ was off the table. Am I off base due to "must" file vs. "may" file? Who Must File Form 5500-EZ You must file Form 5500-EZ for a retirement plan if the plan is a one-participant plan or a foreign plan that is required to file an annual return under section 6058(a). A one-participant plan means a retirement plan (that is, a defined benefit pension plan or a defined contribution profit-sharing or money purchase pension plan), other than an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), which: 1. Covers only you (or you and your spouse) and you (or you and your spouse) own the entire business (which may be incorporated or unincorporated); or 2. Covers only one or more partners (or partners and their spouses) in a business partnership (treating 2% shareholder of an S corporation, as defined in IRC §1372(b), as a partner); and 3. Does not provide benefits for anyone except you (or you and your spouse) or one or more partners (or partners and their spouses)

Are you sure the $100k earned income has not already been reduce by the $99k?

I've asked while on phone with Relius and the person said they have not heard anything about any update to address it. I've brought up to my Sales Rep and in various tickets that have been logged. They do not react at all and do not seem to have any plan to address it. I am looking forward to my contract end date. IT is not happy

I luckily started the year after the 1/3 2/3 test went away. I guess it was the precursor to the ADP test but I never had to do one. Anyone know what it was?

It would be worth searching all prior plan documents. Perhaps it was stated in an earlier version and dropped off somewhere over time. Could at least shave a few years off the cost