C. B. Zeller

taxnotes.com has the functionality you're talking about. The currently displayed section (paragraph, subpararaph, etc) is displayed at the top and updates as you scroll up and down through the document. The cite can be copied by clicking a button. For example ... 26 CFR Section 1.401(k)-3(d)(2) or IRC Section 415(c)(3)

In their comment letter to the IRS dated May 30, 2025, ARA recommended that the deadline be extended by default. https://araadvocacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/ARA-Government-Affairs-Comment-Letter-2025-05-30-Notice-2024-202.pdf

Since it's a rare circumstance, you won't find it in the list of approved self-correction methods. It sounds reasonable to me, but if the sponsor wants to be certain that they aren't jeopardizing their plan's qualified status, they could submit under VCP.

The SECURE 2 rule only breaks controlled groups between spouses where the controlled group exists solely because of a minor child, or community property laws. The spousal noninvolvement test remains otherwise unaffected. So if they want to continue to have a controlled group (it sounds like they might) then all they have to do is find a way to break the spousal noninvolvement rule; for example, they could participate in the management of each other's businesses, or they could give each other options to buy stock in each other's company.

I saw this on a takeover a number of years ago. There were only two participants in the plan - the owner and one employee - and the owner had been making contributions into the employee's personal IRA. It was a 401(a) violation due to failure to keep the assets in trust. We filed under VCP and had them move the assets into a plan account.

Are the PAs in an affiliated service group with the partnership? (Probably yes - this is the classic ASG scenario, and it would explain why the three doctor partners are able to participate in the partnership's plan even though they are not employees of the partnership. However an ASG determination is highly fact-specific, and the standard advice to consult an attorney applies.) Assuming this is an ASG, then the one doctor could adopt his own plan, but it would have to be aggregated with the partnership's plan for testing. Keep in mind that includes not just benefits (ADP/ACP, etc) but also availability of benefits, rights and features, so he can't for example have an investment in his plan that isn't available to the employees of the partnership.

The preamble to the 2025 proposed regulations also mentions 3121(b)(7) service as an exclusion: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2025-00350/p-47

Just to be clear, are you looking for a present value calculation using some set of 430/404/417(e) segment rates and either the 2024 or 2025 417(e) mortality table for a given attained age and retirement age? It's not a trivial calculation, although with some effort you could do it in Excel. What software do you use for valuations? I'm sure your software can do the calculation and give you a result.

These are the ones listed in the reg (formatted to be easier to read):

The 401(a)(4) reg lists 9 separate mortality tables that may be used, plus the 417(e) applicable table, for a total of 10 mortality tables. Since you can use any interest rate between 7.50% and 8.50%, in 0.01% increments, that's a total of 100 possible interest rates. So there are a total of 1000 possible combinations of mortality table and interest rate, or 1000 possible APR tables just for cross-testing! I don't think anyone has all of them posted somewhere free for download. I would suggest just picking the ones you use most often and downloading them out of your software.

Even if the plan issues a 1099-R reporting no known exceptions, the individual can still show that they are exempt from the penalty on Form 5329, filed with their income tax return.

It's actually not in 414(s), it's from the definition of "Plan Year Compensation" in 1.401(a)(4)-12. So it's not technically correct to say that it's a 414(s) definition but it is nevertheless allowable for most testing purposes.

Are you using the option to disaggregate otherwise excludable employees from testing? If so, the employees who haven't met 1 year of service (i.e. those who aren't eligible for profit sharing contributions) wouldn't need to receive the gateway minimum. In general, the definition of compensation used for allocations does not dictate the definition of compensation used for testing. You can use any allowable definition of compensation for testing.

The good ol' IRS Rollover Chart explains it clearly: Roll from: Qualified Plan (pre-tax) Roll to: Roth IRA Allowed: Yes (with a footnote) Footnote says: Must include in income.

The instructions for schedule SB line 15: Personally, I usually find it simpler to certify an AFTAP (even if it's not needed) than to create an attachment to the SB.

Correct. All plans maintained by the employer or by a predecessor employer are treated as a single plan for purposes of applying the 415 limit. 1.415(f)-1(a)(1)

If it's a successor employer then the DB plans are aggregated for purposes of applying the 415 limit. In other words the distribution from the prior plan will reduce the max you can accrue in the new plan.

At 50% ownership there is not a controlled group. It would depend on whether the new company is a "successor" within the meaning of 1.415(f)-1(c).

I have a feeling I know which recordkeeper you're talking about. I agree completely, applying additional payments of principal to offset future interest is unsound. I don't think you'll find that rule in any IRS regulation; it is simply not how loans work. If you are going to stay with this recordkeeper then you may want to modify the plan's loan policy to disallow repayment amounts other than the scheduled amount. A participant could request a re-amortization if they want to accelerate their payoff. Again, if I know which recordkeeper this is, then they have a function to request a payoff quote for an employee who wants to repay their loan in full; if the amount generated by the quote is deposited within a certain timeframe then it will correctly apply it to principal and treat the loan as fully repaid. If allowing random repayment amounts is important to the plan sponsor, then they should find a new recordkeeper, as the current one does not meet the plan's requirements. They should let the recordkeeper know why they are leaving, if they choose this route.

Have they ever worked 1000 hours in a year? If not could you test coverage on the basis of disaggregating otherwise excludable employees?

Earlier this year, the IRS released proposed regulations under section 414A. Proposed 1.414A-1(d)(4)(ii) says that "For this purpose, the number of employees that the employer normally employs for a taxable year is determined using the rules of Q&A-5 of § 54.4980B-2 of this chapter." https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2025-00501/p-188 54.4980B-2 Q&A-5 defines "employer" by reference to Q&A-2 of the same section. Q&A-2(a) defines employer as " (1) A person for whom services are performed; (2) Any other person that is a member of a group described in section 414(b), (c), (m), or (o) that includes a person described in paragraph (a)(1) of this Q&A-2; and (3) Any successor of a person described in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this Q&A-2." For an employer who chooses to rely upon the proposed regulations in their current form, I would conclude that they are required to include other members of their related groups when determining if they meet the exemption of 414A(c)(4)(B).

If you're using the average benefits test to pass coverage, then remember the average benefits percentage test is only part of it. You also have to pass the nondiscriminatory classification test, and part of that test is that you have to have a reasonable classification. Excluding (or including) people by name is deemed not reasonable. So if you pick and choose which of the people who would otherwise be not benefiting to now receive a benefit, I think you fail to have a reasonable classification and therefore would lose the ability to use the average benefits test. But like Bri said, check your document. If it has a 410(b) failsafe, then it probably brings people in automatically, but chances are it brings in enough people to pass the ratio percentage test. Which might be more people than you were expecting.

Rev. Rul. 84-69 (emphasis added):

A TPA, actuary, or other service provider assisting the sponsor with their submission should naturally charge a reasonable fee for their time. However the PBGC does not charge a fee for a coverage determination.

PensionPro might be a little overkill for just plan restatements, but it can certainly do the job. They will help you customize data fields, projects and cycles for your needs.