C. B. Zeller

A participant who does not keep themselves informed of IRS regulatory activity (presumably most participants) should rely on a trusted service provider such as a recordkeeper, custodian, or TPA to provide them with the most up-to-date information. Pub 590-B (which only relates to IRAs, not qualified plans), even says "If an RMD is required from your IRA, the trustee, custodian, or issuer that held the IRA at the end of the preceding year must either report the amount of the RMD to you, or offer to calculate it for you." The IRS does not expect IRA owners to calculate their own RMD amounts.

The revised 1.401(a)(9)-9 which contains the new tables was published in the Federal Register on November 12, 2020. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/11/12/2020-24723/updated-life-expectancy-and-distribution-period-tables-used-for-purposes-of-determining-minimum

I did some Googling and found the interaction that Mike referred to, from the 1999 ASPPA Annual Conference. https://www.asppa.org/advocacy/irs-qas-1999 That's it, one word for an answer. I agree with Belgarath, this is confusing, as there does seem to be a distinct possibility of a non-discrimination issue. To answer the question from earlier, as to why I think it would be unlikely that this would be nondiscriminatory: When the owner is acting as the trustee of the plan, they are going to select a mix of investments that they feel will meet the needs of the plan, regardless of what the participants in the plan might want or would have chosen if they'd had the chance. In the plan covering the employees, the participants are not going to get a chance to give their input on the plan's investments. What I don't understand is how you could expect such a person, in the position of the trustee of an account that only covers themselves, to not consider their own investment preferences. Maybe there is someone out there who could invest their own account as if they were a disinterested 3rd party, but I don't think that's the same person who would go out of their way to set up a whole separate plan for themselves.

It might, however, strengthen any later claim for the funds (whether by the plan or by the designated beneficiary) against the person in control of the bank account, as such person would have to actively commit an act of deception in order to keep the payments flowing.

I would say no. The allocation method is whatever it says in the plan document, presumably individual groups if it's new comp. Just because you choose to test the allocation by imputing permitted disparity, does not mean that the allocation is based on permitted disparity.

Could the plan require retirees in pay status to periodically send back a certification that they are still alive? Maybe once a year? That would not eliminate the problem entirely, but instead of 3 years' worth of payments in question, it would be at most 1 year's worth. They might consider offering (or requiring) post-retirement installment payments that are paid by the purchase of a life-contingent annuity contract from an insurer. Assuming that the plan administrator acts prudently in the selection of the annuity provider, the problem of determining whether the payee is alive or dead becomes an issue for the insurance company, which is part of their business model. In other words, leave it to the professionals.

I could see an argument for it if the owners are each wearing their "trustee hat" when selecting the investments for their own plan. In reality though I think this is extremely unlikely to be the case.

The right to direct the investment of your account is a benefit, right or feature that has to be available to all participants on a non-discriminatory basis. Even if they split the plan into 3, the two owners' plans would not satisfy coverage testing on their own, so they would have to be aggregated with the plan covering the employees for nondiscrimination testing purposes. If the effect of the change would be that each of the owners would have the ability to direct the investments of their own accounts, but that option would not be available to their employees, then that would be discriminatory.

Why would you have a safe harbor plan if there are no other participants? Does this individual have a SEP or any other plans?

Form 5500 and 5500-SF have required, for a number of years now, an attachment when filing as a DC multiple-employer plan. For years before 2021, the attachment was required to list each participating employer in the MEP, the employer's EIN, and the percentage of the total contributions for that employer. Starting in 2021, the attachment now requires a fourth data element, which is the aggregate account balance attributable to each employer in the MEP. See the 2021 Form 5500/5500-SF instructions under Line A – Box for Multiple-Employer Plan for more information (and compare to 2020).

If that's what the plan says.

You can let them in after 6 months if they complete 1000 hours in 6 months, but you can't keep them out if they complete 1000 hours in more than 6 but within 12 months.

Is there a controlled group or affiliated service group? It sounds like there is probably an ASG, so if that is the case, then you can keep the existing plan, but it would have to be aggregated with the partnership's plan for most purposes. You said the partnership has a safe harbor plan, so I am assuming there are NHCEs covered by the plan. In that case, it's going to be problematic for the one partner to maintain his existing plan since it can't be aggregated with a safe harbor plan for ADP testing, and it will fail coverage due to the non-covered NHCEs.

The 5500 and 8955-SSA (IRC 6057, 6058, and 6059) are covered under the rev proc so there should be no need for them to be mentioned specifically.

Under 1.401(k)-1(d)(4)(i), you can not make distributions from a 401(k) plan upon plan termination if the employer sponsors another defined contribution plan at any time within the 12 months after the distributions from the plan are complete. This is sometimes known as the successor plan rule. Because this was a stock purchase, the purchaser is now the sponsor of both plans, so they could not terminate one while continuing to maintain the other. They either have to maintain both indefinitely, or merge one into the other.

The minimum funding deadline (IRC 430(j)(1)) is not covered under rev proc 2018-58. The deadline to make a deductible contribution for a given year (IRC 404(a)(6)) however, is covered under the rev proc and under 301.7508A-1. Worth mentioning in this thread that the January 3 deadline was just further extended to February 15. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/hurricane-ida-tax-relief-extended-to-february-15-for-part-or-all-of-six-qualifying-states

No. 1.401(k)-2(a)(5)(vi)

There is never really a good time for their site to go down, but they have to do maintenance sometimes. That said, I don't remember seeing anything announcing this ahead of time. It is possible this was unplanned? Maybe related to the recent AWS outages? Assuming it does come back up on 12/22 as scheduled, that still leaves you a full week (even accounting for holidays) to get your filings submitted. If this downtime really does prevent you from filing on time, you could try asking them for an extension, or at least a waiver of any penalties. They are usually pretty reasonable.

How? Unless there is a management service group, there has to be some common ownership in order to have an ASG. An asset sale (by definition) doesn't involve the transfer of ownership. So unless there was an ASG before, the mere sale shouldn't have the effect of creating an ASG. If there actually is an ASG, then the two companies are treated as a single employer. So the question becomes, can the employer who maintains two 401(k) plans terminate one and have a distributable event while continuing to maintain the other? The answer is no.

From the instructions to 1099-R: No withholding on direct rollovers.

29 CFR § 2520.104-50

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-1/subject-group-ECFR6f8c3724b50e44d/section-1.401(a)(9)-9

Sounds like they applied the correction under Rev Proc 2021-30 Appendix B 2.07(4)

1.401(a)(4)-7(c)(2) and (3)

PPA sec. 1103 directed the IRS to modify the requirements for filing a 5500-EZ to define the term "partner" as including a 2% shareholder in an S-corp, as defined in 1372(b). 1372(b) references 318 for attribution of ownership. That change finally made its way into the instructions for the 5500 series starting with the 2020 forms. PPA did not modify the definition of employee benefit plan in Title I of ERISA. So the daughter is still considered an employee for all other purposes under Title I. It was @RatherBeGolfing who pointed this out to me in the first place, so maybe they would be willing to chime in as well.