C. B. Zeller

You would treat it as a reduction to the value of benefits expected to be paid out. The instructions for the standard termination filing discusses the election to forgo receipt of benefits (don't call it a "waiver") for line 7 of the EA-S, under the heading of "Plan Amendments."

This is what the Form 5500-EZ says right above the signature line: So I don't see how a plan administrator could sign a 5500-EZ before the Schedule SB has been signed without perjuring themselves.

My recollection from looking into it with regard to last year's hurricane Ida relief is that the relief is available if a plan's service provider is located in the declared disaster area, however, the plan administrator should be prepared to receive correspondence from the government agencies and to provide evidence (or at least a statement) that the disaster actually prevented them from filing timely. In other words, the extension is not automatic; if the plan administrator could have filed timely, then the extension would not be automatically granted merely because the service provider was located in the disaster area. Presumably the relief for hurricane Ian is granted under similar principles. It's interesting to note that the relief granted for Form 5500 filers is actually retroactive - it extends to returns due on or after September 15, even though the disaster did not occur until September 23. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-announces-tax-relief-for-victims-of-hurricane-ian-in-florida

1. Sure, why not? Unless the plan sponsor has already been contacted by the IRS. 2. If the prior service provider didn't do something as basic as file a 5500, who knows what else they might have done wrong? I would start by making sure the plan document is up to date with all required restatements and amendments. It also couldn't hurt to ask about any current or former employees, controlled group or affiliated service group issues, other plans, etc. etc. etc.

"Seemingly" being the operative word there. Snark aside, I googled the quoted bit and found the website being referenced. To be fair to them, the page does include a a brief discussion of what a floor-offset arrangement really is. It doesn't go into detail about the various pitfalls and unintended consequences that come along with floor-offsets, but that's to be expected from a marketing perspective. All this does, however, highlight the dangers of using language loosely like that - it's very easy for people to take quotes and re-post them without context, which can change their perceived meaning and lead to misunderstandings.

This is false. Misleading at best.

For me, I would want a sponsor to tell me in writing that they want to elect the alternative method. Then I'll prepare the premium filing using the alternative funding target. There is a checkbox to say that you are electing the alternative method, which would need to be checked. The rates for the alternative method are just the 430(h)(2)(C) segment rates without stabilization, which is to say, they are the segment rates used for calculating the maximum deduction limit. Your premium funding target using the alternative method is just your (vested) maximum funding target. Good question about the lookback month, it doesn't come up very often that a plan changes its lookback month. My guess is that if you changed the lookback month for funding purposes, it would also change for alternative premium funding target purposes. Remember that the segment rates for the alternative method are 24-month averages, so they will tend to be higher (=lower premiums) when interest rates are falling, and lower (=higher premiums) when interest rates are rising, as compared to the standard method (spot) rates. With interest rates looking to rise sharply this year, I would be very careful about recommending a sponsor switch to the alternative method now, since it will lock them in to the 24-month average rates for 5 years.

When you say "refund one participant," what I'm hearing is that there are multiple HCEs and you want to just pick one to eat a refund. That is not ok under any method I have ever heard of. The 401(k) regs and EPCRS lay out specific methods for correcting an ADP test failure. Try something else at your own peril. Also don't forget to read the plan document. Does it say anything about how an ADP test failure will be corrected?

If you're worried about it, maybe write the benefit formula as the greater of 0.5% per year, or the benefit provided by the cash balance account. That should make sure that you're benefiting for purposes of 410(b)/401(a)(26), even if you don't actually accrue a benefit in the current year.

Post-SECURE Act, the notice is no longer required for a 3% safe harbor non-elective contribution to satisfy the ADP safe harbor, but you do still need the notice if you want to satisfy the ACP safe harbor.

You can always correct using refunds or QNECs up to 12 months after the end of the plan year that failed. Otherwise, if it's eligible for self-correction, you can use the One-to-One method in rev. proc. 2021-30. If it's not eligible for self-correction, then it's into VCP. If you don't want to use the one-to-one method, you could try proposing an alternative method in VCP, but I think you'd better have a darn good reason why you aren't using the method that was specifically provided in the rev proc.

1. Will probably pass on accrued-to-date. 2. I don't see how it can pass with only 33% of the employees receiving a benefit.

See Treas. Reg. 1.411(b)(5)-1(d) and (e). You might find this page helpful as well: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/issue-snapshot-how-to-change-interest-crediting-rates-in-a-cash-balance-plan Any fixed interest crediting rate of not more than 6% annually is fine. The IRS is generally concerned about interest crediting rates being too high, not too low.

Strictly speaking, a retroactive amendment to cure a 401(a)(26) failure is a 1.401(a)(26)-7(c) amendment - however most of the same rules apply as under 1.401(a)(4)-11(g). So no - you can't do a -7(c) amendment to increase only an HCE, because the amendment has to be nondiscriminatory on its own, under the -11(g) rules. If there are no NHCEs that could be added to the plan (including possibly someone who has not yet satisfied age and service requirements), then your options are: 1. VCP (if they even approve it) 2. Retro amendment that increases the one HCE, plus enough NHCEs to satisfy coverage and nondiscrimination on its own All of this is assuming of course that the plan says a 401(a)(26) failure will be corrected by amendment. If the plan document has a fail-safe in place, then you have to apply the fail-safe.

No. There is a requirement under Title I of ERISA to file the 5500, but that only applies to plans which are subject to Title I. Plans which cover only the 100% owner of a business, or partners in a partnership, are exempt from Title I. The reason the 5500-EZ exists is for those plans to provide a report to the IRS, since the DOL reporting requirements don't apply. For the most part, a plan which can file 5500-EZ is the same thing as a plan which is exempt from Title I. That line has become a little blurred recently, but there is coordination between the IRS and the DOL here. A plan administrator is only required to file either the 5500-EZ or the 5500(-SF) for any given year.

Then what does "because we put the participant account" mean, and how is it relevant to whether you file SF or EZ?

2019 was the last year you could file a one-participant plan on SF. Starting in 2020 you could file the EZ electronically. If there is a non-owner participant in the plan, even if they are not active, then you can not file 5500-EZ.

I did not mean to suggest that March 15, which would usually occur in the 11th week of a calendar year, would be within the "first few weeks" of the year. My reference to the rule was in response to Nate S's comment. Is anyone aware of any situations in which the IRS, either in a ruling or on audit, found that compensation included under this rule was paid too late in the following year to count as the "first few weeks?" I think so. Paragraph (d) provides safe harbors for items included in compensation, and paragraph (e) provides timing rules. I read them as being taken in concert with each other.

Possibly the "first few weeks" rule of 1.415(c)-2(e)(2)?

This means amounts that could be distributed from the plan. For example, 401(k) deferrals if the participant is over age 59½. There are other distributable events for 401(k) deferrals, of course, but those would not generally be of much use in an IRR context. Terminated employees can't usually make rollover contributions, and hardship distributions aren't eligible rollover distributions, for a couple of examples. This is anything that couldn't be distributed from the plan, for example 401(k) deferrals or safe harbor contributions under age 59½ while still employed. If a plan allows a Roth conversion of amounts that are not otherwise distributable, then it has to retain the distribution restrictions that applied to the amounts prior to the conversion. That means, in most cases, the plan will have to track twice the number of sources that they had in the plan before. For example, now they have 401(k), 401(k) Roth conversion, safe harbor, safe harbor Roth conversion, profit sharing, profit sharing Roth conversion, etc. That might be the reason why a particular platform isn't supporting this type of conversion.

As long as the formula is written into the plan doc, then I agree you are good on the ADP and ACP safe harbor.

And you've determined that the spousal non-involvement exception does not apply? 414(b) says: The IRS has produced no such regulations. So, that leaves the allocation of the deduction to some reasonable interpretation of the taxpayer. Anything that's not abusive is probably ok, but I would encourage the sponsor to get advice from their accountant, if not an attorney, before doing anything questionable.

This will NOT meet the requirements for a discretionary ACP safe harbor match. It should be ok for a fixed match however.

Are A and B a controlled group?

The difficulty, of course, is that these elections are not being processed by fifth-graders - they are being processed by computers, which are only as smart as they are programmed to be. Computers generally process numbers as either integers or "floating point" numbers - essentially decimals. While it is certainly possible to program a computer to work with fractions, it is more complex than using integers or floating points, and the person developing the system (or more accurately, the person paying for the development of the system) may feel that benefit of the added precision gained by supporting fractional numbers is not worth it in terms of development and support costs. If we continue this line of reasoning, why stop at fractions? What if I want to designate 1/sqrt(2) of my account to my first contingent beneficiary, and 1-1/sqrt(2) to the second? This amount could be readily calculated, but it would not be reasonable of me to expect the software to support designations made in terms of irrational numbers. Instead I should be prepared to accept an approximation. An approximation that is accurate only to one part in a hundred (whole percentages) is not great, however the information provided in this thread seems to indicate that is uncommon among providers. More common seems to be precision to one part in a thousand (percentage with one decimal place) or one part in ten thousand (percentage with two decimal places), which while not perfect, is pretty good. For an account with a value in the millions, percentage with two decimal places means that the amounts will be accurate to within the hundreds of dollars.