C. B. Zeller

These questions are coming back starting in 2022, if the proposal that was released a couple of days ago is finalized. It will be on the Schedule R, 5500-SF, and 5500-EZ.

https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/definitely-determinable-benefits

This question is outside of my area of expertise, but I will note that the Securing a Strong Retirement Act would, if passed, amend IRC 414(b) to state that community property is disregarded for purposes of determining ownership in a controlled group. So it seems that there is some intent in Congress to get rid of this, but it remains to be seen if the provision will actually end up in law. It would also state that controlled groups will not exist solely due to the existence of a minor child.

Yes. Even if she stops working for her husband's company, don't forget to look out for minor children, or community property depending on what state they're in.

An default that is a deemed distribution (not an offset) goes on 2g. An offset is an actual distribution and goes on 2e1.

What is the individual's date of birth? On what date did they cease to be a 5% owner?

Point them to the section of the plan document that says distributions will commence by the participant's required beginning date, even without the participant's consent.

An RMD can be distributed without the participant's consent. However the participant must be given the opportunity to waive the 10% federal income tax withholding. As a matter of prudence, the plan administrator might want to get the participant to complete a form, if only to ensure that the payment information is correct. If the participant in question is the plan administrator, then this step might be redundant.

The trust must have an EIN. Usually this comes up when you are opening a new account at a brokerage house, as they will need an EIN to open the account. Even if you get a EIN for the plan, you must still use the sponsor's EIN on the 5500. The only place the trust EIN will appear on the 5500 would usually be on the Schedule R, and if you're talking about small plans you wouldn't usually need to attach a Schedule R.

Belgarath is correct, "designated" beneficiary under IRS regs does not require the participant's actual designation. See reg 1.401(a)(9)-4, particularly Q&A-2. If you have access to ERISApedia.com, chapter 6 of their Qualified Plan eSource has a good discussion of this.

SECURE added qualified birth and adoption distributions, but those are limited to $5000. That notwithstanding, IRC 401(k)(2)(B) remains intact.

If he included it in the business return, it sounds like a reversion. 50% or 20% excise tax applies.

You can't aggregate plans for testing if they have different plan years. If the PS plan terminates and has a short plan year, but the DB plan has a full plan year, that's going to be a problem if they won't pass testing separately.

I agree with the other commenters that there is no way this is ok. The excise tax under IRC 4972 is on non-deductible contributions, defined as contributions made in excess of the limit under IRC 404. Choosing not to take a deduction for a contribution does not make it a nondeductible contribution, if it does not exceed the 404 limit. Furthermore, even if you did actually make a nondeductible contribution, you still have to allocate it to the extent possible. You could carry forward an allocation if, for example, all participants were at their 415 limits.

Are you talking about a management group? The definitions of A-org and B-org both reference an ownership interest in the FSO. I agree that the bullet points I mentioned earlier fail to account for management groups.

Mistake of fact is usually a minor typographical or arithmetic error. If they meant to put in $10,000 and but typed an extra zero by accident, that would be one thing. But I would have a hard time believing they didn't notice $90,000 missing for over 8 months! Check the plan document. I bet it says that the contributions will be allocated to participants.

I agree with ERISApedia and Who's the Employer. Your group of employees who satisfied the maximum age and service conditions of 410(a) will satisfy ADP by way of the safe harbor contribution. Your non-410(a) group will be subject to the ADP test; even though some employees in that group are receiving safe harbor contributions, it does not satisfy the ADP safe harbor because not all employees in that group who are eligible to defer are getting them. Hopefully all of your otherwise excludables are NHCEs, so testing that group will be satisfied easily.

I don't think that increasing the force out limit would be an additional benefit, right, or feature, since it would remove certain participants' rights (the right to defer their distribution). I think you could treat this as failure to obtain participant consent to the distribution, and correct using the method in Appendix A.07. Basically, give them the option to repay the distribution back to the plan.

The lifetime income amount is equal to the account balance divided by the annuity purchase rate (APR). The APR is calculated actuarially and is based on the age, survivor benefit, assumed interest rate, and assumed mortality. Your valuation software may be able to calculate the APR from these inputs. For example here is a screenshot showing the calculation of the 100% J&S factor using the 2021 417(e) table and the 10-year treasury rate as of 8/2/2021 in ASC: If the participant's account balance was $100,000 as of the 8/31/2021 statement, the J&S lifetime income amount would be 100,000 / 252.208 = $396.50.

To get back to the original question, the extension of the self-correction period under Rev Proc 2021-30 should mean you can now use SCP.

The plan document should address the match computation period.

You can do it, but watch your coverage test. From the way you describe it, it sounds like most of the people subject to the 2-year eligibility are going to be NHCEs.

Could such a clause have the effect of causing the plan to violate IRC 401(a)(14) or 401(a)(9)?

Presumably he reports the 1099 income on Schedule C of his 1040, and he can use Schedule C income as plan compensation.

You cannot use the 2 year of service rule with a 401(k) plan (or the 401(k) feature of a profit sharing plan).