C. B. Zeller

Peter's info (as he is clear to remind us, not advice) is thorough and excellent as always. It sounds like the client is happy with the current tax situation, and ejohnke is just looking to correct the potential disqualifying defect of allowing a distribution that shouldn't have happened. Is that accurate? If the individual could have had a distributable event, but the plan didn't allow the distribution, could the plan be retroactively amended to permit it? For example, the participant is 60 years old, so amend the plan retroactively to 2025 to permit in-service distributions at age 59-1/2. Problem solved. If there really is no possible distributable event (don't forget that employer money sources can have much more liberal distribution restrictions than 401(k) deferrals), then you might still be able to get relief for the distribution (and leave the money in the Roth IRA) through VCP.

Stock sale or asset sale? If asset sale: A still exists as a shell company and the owner(s) of A can sign on behalf of A. The participants can take distributions right after the sale date since they are no longer employees of A. If stock sale: B is now the sponsor of The Company A 401(k) Plan and has the authority to sign. Participants can not take a distribution until the plan termination date. Termination triggers the successor plan rule and B may not be allowed to maintain a 401(k) plan for 1 year after the distribution date. This is why, with a stock sale, it is important to terminate the seller's plan before the sale date, or be prepared to merge the plans.

An IRA can not be part of a qualified plan. A Roth IRA can not be rolled over into a Roth account in a qualified plan. Just set up the new account. Do it right.

No, you can't self-correct the initial failure to adopt a written plan. See Rev. Proc. 2021-30 4.01(b) and Notice 2023-43 A-2(1).

Interest AND mortality. See Bri's response. There is no such thing as an annuity with 12 monthly payments made all at once. There is an annuity with annual installments, or an annuity with monthly installments.

Glad to hear it's working out well for you. In my experience, I've never seen the IRS try to bring the hammer down on someone who was demonstrably making an honest effort to comply. They are pretty lenient with waiving penalties as long as you can show you were trying.

To satisfy the RMD in a DB plan, the participant must commence distribution of their entire accrued benefit no later than the RBD. What does the plan document say about the available forms of benefit? I suspect it offers a few annuity options, with monthly or annual frequency. The participant would need to elect one of the available forms of benefit and commence distribution under the selected form. Conversion of the accrued benefit to the elected optional form must be done according to the plan document's rules. In regard to your questions, consider this: I'm assuming your acccrued benefit numbers are single life annuity amounts. What would happen if the participant commenced distributions as a monthly life annuity on 4/1/2026 at $1,090/month and then died on 4/2/2026? Now compare that to what would happen if they took $9,810 on 4/1/2026 instead. Do you see the problem? As an aside, this is why you should never do RMDs from DB plans as life annuities. Use a term certain only annuity without life contingencies, that way if the participant dies, the undistributed part of their accrued benefit is not forfeited. Alternatively, you can do a lump sum distribution of the entire accrued benefit, use the DC account balance method to calculate the portion that is an RMD, and roll over the rest. Just be aware of 436 restrictions and the 110% funded rule if you go this route.

ASC can natively import txt files. Is the file structured in any reasonable way? Have you tried using one of ASC's import wizards or their predefined importer specs, if one exists for the data source you're using? If you want to take the approach of using code to extract/transform data before loading it into ASC, then a chatbot could probably help you write the code. I'd recommend that you know enough Python (or whatever language) to be able to read and understand the bot's output before relying on it in production. People on the internet seem to like Claude for that kind of task these days, but I can't offer any personal experience.

Just the usual 25% limit.

That's correct. The combined deduction limit doesn't apply if the DB plan is covered by PBGC. IRC 404(a)(7)(C)(iv)

Plans limiting pre-tax catch-up contributions for employees not subject to section 414(v)(7). The rules of paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section also apply to a plan that includes a qualified Roth contribution program and, in accordance with an optional plan term providing for aggregation of wages under § 1.414(v)-2(b)(4)(ii), (b)(4)(iii), or (b)(4)(iv)(A), does not permit pre-tax catch-up contributions for one or more employees who are not subject to section 414(v)(7). The bolded part makes all the difference here. Normally, you do not aggregate wages from multiple employers to deterimine if an employee is subject to mandatory Roth catch-up - even if the employers are part of a controlled group or otherwise aggregated for other plan purposes. However, the referenced sections provide for optional aggregation of wages if the companies are using common paymaster, are aggregated under 414(b), (c), (m) or (o), or in the year of an asset purchase. If the plan is optionally aggregating wages under one of those provisions, then you may end up with some employees who would not normally be subject to mandatory Roth catch-up, but who are solely because of the aggregation. What the quoted paragraph is saying is that a plan can restrict those employees to Roth catch-up even though strictly speaking they are not subject to 414(v)(7).

As of right now, it looks like the article is running under the title "America’s Booming Solo Workers Embrace $72,000 Tax Shelter" Besides Form 5500, possible pain points include: Capturing any non-owner employees who are required to be covered (including long-term part-time employees) Analysis of related employers which could result in a controlled group or affiliated service group With respect to an unincorporated business, calculation of net earned income, both for purposes of limiting contributions to 100% of compensation and deduction of employer contributions to 25% of compensation Applying limitations on distributions Applying mandatory tax withholding on distributions Reporting distributions on Form 1099-R Applying a plan's loan provisions

You mean like https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/employers-and-advisers/plan-administration-and-compliance/reporting-and-filing/form-5500 ?

Not sure I follow your comment about top heavy. Are you saying that none of the XYZ employees have EVER worked 1000 hours in a year, meaning they are all otherwise excludable and therefore don't have to receive a top heavy minimum contribution under SECURE 2.0 rules? If so, then I agree. However if any of them ever do work 1000 hours then they will have to receive a top heavy minimum because the DC plan does not consist SOLELY of deferrals+safe harbor, and therefore doesn't qualify for the top heavy exemption. If this is a concern that there might be XYZ people who work 1000 hours in the future, I'd recommend separating the 401(k)+safe harbor and the profit sharing into separate plans so that you can maintain the top heavy exemption. Anyhow, use $500k for your deduction limit calc. None of the XYZ employees are benefiting in the plan so you can't count their comp.

The gateway may not be tested using component plans. See 1.401(a)(4)-9(c)(3)(ii)

A plan which consists solely of deferrals and safe harbor contributions is deemed not top-heavy. As soon as a dollar of profit sharing goes in to the plan - regardless of whether it goes to a key or non-key employee - the exemption is lost. Now the plan must provide the top heavy minimum. First check the highest allocation rate to any key employee, including deferrals. If that's greater than 3%, then the top heavy minimum is 3%. Then look at each of the non-key employees, and see how much they received in safe harbor matching contributions. If they deferred at least 3% (or 5% if a QACA), then their safe harbor match would be at least 3% and they would not need any additional employer contribution. Then you have to give a profit sharing allocation to each of the other non-key employees who were employed on the last day of the year. If they received any match at all, then the profit sharing just has to be enough to get them to 3% match + profit sharing. If there are any non-key HCEs that received profit sharing, then you have to test the profit sharing allocation for coverage and non-discrimination. All of this is assuming that it agrees with your plan document. This is what the plan documents that I use say, but you have to read yours to make sure it's the same. For example, yours might give the top heavy minimum to all employees as opposed to just non-keys, or it might not have the last day requirement, or something else entirely.

I assume this is a DC plan? If so then 1.401(a)(9)-5 applies. So the default rule is that you use the entire balance, vested or not. However if the RMD exceeds the vested balance, then you only distribute the vested amount. If we're talking about someone who terminated during 2025, then also be sure to check the plan document's rules about when forfeitures occur. If they are deemed to have a forfeiture immediately upon termination (say because their vested account balance is less than $7,000) then their account balance as of 12/31/2025 (for the 2026 DCY) would only be the vested amount. For 12/31/2024 (used for the 2025 DCY, due by 4/1/2026) there couldn't have been a forfeiture by then so I think there's no question that the full account balance is used.

It's actually based on the employer, determined without regard to controlled groups or affiliated service groups. So if you have a plan sponsored by two companies, A and B, which are members of a controlled group, and employee X earns $100,000 from each A and B, then even though their plan comp is $200,000, they are not subject to Roth catch-up from either employer since their comp from any employer was not greater than the limit. Meanwhile if you have employee Y in the same plan who earns $180,000 from A and $20,000 from B, then their deferrals from A would be subject to Roth catch-up while their deferrals from B would not.

Cuse is correct. If your client needs proof, you can point them to IRC sec. 401(k)(12) which requires that the contribution be made to "each employee who is not a highly compensated employee and who is eligible to participate in the arrangement." Also see Example 4 in 1.401(k)-3(c)(7) of the regulations which is exactly on point that you can not impose a last day requirement on a safe harbor contribution.

This particular provision has actually expired: However, SECURE 2.0 sec. 350 codified essentially the same correction method into law at IRC sec. 414(cc). See also Notice 2024-02 section I, which gives further guidance, including how to apply 414(cc) to terminated participants.

If they want to be more restrictive, then passage of time is not going to accomplish that. They probably want to use a counting hours method, possibly with an equivalency if they don't/can't track actual hours.

Passage of time typically means that the participant becomes eligible after a period of time without regard to any service or breaks in service. It's similar to elapsed time, but without the service spanning rules - or rather, if the service spanning period were forever, instead of 12 months. Say an employee was hired on 11/6/2025, works for 2 months and quits on 1/6/2026. Then they show up again a year later and are re-hired on 3/1/2027. They are in the plan immediately on 3/1/2027, because more than 6 months have passed since their original date of hire. Contrast that to elapsed time, where they wouldn't get credit for their period of severance (because it was more than 12 months) and would have to work another 4 months after being re-hired in order to have earned a total of 6 months of elapsed time. It's probably a good idea to keep the 1000 hours failsafe in the document. While I can't think of a situation where it would override a 6 month passage-of-time requirement, maybe there are some class exclusions that it would be needed for. It also gives you some assurance, because it sounds like this passage-of-time provision is custom language added to the document. So, on the off chance that the IRS finds issue with it on audit, then at least you have the standard language to fall back on. As far as applying break-in-service rules, I don't think they would apply. But ultimately the interpretation of the plan document is up to the Plan Administrator, so they should abide by their best judgement, taking into account what has been communicated to participants about the rule, and probably with they lawyer's advice.

The 1-rollover-per-year rule only applies to distributions from IRAs, which are rolled over to another IRA. They can roll over as many distributions from plans as they like. They could also roll over multiple IRA distributions to plans without violating the rule.

By "AI consultant," do you mean a human who consults on AI matters, or a piece of software which is intended to function in place of a human consultant? I don't have any recommendations either way, just wanted to clarify the question.

Whether a plan is subject to mandatory auto enrollment is based on the date the CODA is established. Presumably the CODA was established when the profit sharing plan was established, so it would be after December 2022 and therefore not exempt.