C. B. Zeller

Going off the 404(c) requirements (since as far as I am aware the Code doesn't define "right to direct investments") a participant must have i) the opportunity to exercise control, and ii) the ability to select from a broad menu of investment alternatives. As you mention (ii) is satisfied, however (i) is not until the contribution is actually deposited.

See lines 11b(2) and 38b of the Schedule SB

For a participant-directed plan it clearly would be a problem. The right to direct investments is explicitly named in the regs as an example of a BRF - see 1.401(a)(4)-4(e)(3)(iii)(B). If the HCE gets their contributions on one day and the non-HCE gets theirs some time later, then only the HCE has the right to direct their investments during the intervening period, and current availability would not be satisfied with respect to the right to direct investments if tested on any date during that period. For a pooled account, I think you can argue it is ok, as long as the earnings are allocated in a non-discriminatory way.

I was by an IRS agent a couple of years ago that the annual filing season requirement didn't apply as long as it was only the Form 5500 that was in question. You might want to call the IRS agent and make sure they are ok with it and ask how exactly they want you to complete the 2848.

Try to paste as plain text - this is what your post looks like to me: Unless you were making a joke about IRS guidance being about as clear as Chinese, in which case, carry on...

There is an option on the 2848 for "unenrolled return preparer." Use that option and note that you prepared the Form 5500 under examination.

Form 1120S is the return for an S-corp. S-corp shareholder-employees receive a W-2 from the corporation. Use their earnings on the W-2 and disregard the Schedule K-1.

I like it. We've been using PensionPro for years, not just for data collection, but workflow management, secure file transfers, and there's a Sales Pitch module which I hear from our new business folks is very good.

You can make a Qualified Charitable Distribution from an IRA, but not from a qualified plan. There is nothing stopping the participant from taking the proceeds of their RMD and using it to make a (deductible) charitable contribution.

I asked because the 50% threshold does not apply to S-corps. Since they are C-corps, you might not actually have an ASG, even though it seems like it should be. Here is a section from Who's the Employer, example 14.14.2 seems to be on point:

Whether or not the condition is allowable (without researching it, I am leaning toward not), it is certainly ill-advised. If the plan came under audit, and the auditor asked you why a particular person did not receive a match, how do you demonstrate that they did not give 2 weeks' notice? You can't open their file and pull out the non-notice.

Are these S-corps or C-corps?

Members of a controlled group or affiliated service group are considered a single employer for purposes of the qualification requirements of section 401.

IRC 401(k)(3)(A) says that if an HCE is a participant in more than one 401(k) arrangement, their ADR must be calculated by treating them as a single plan. In other words it specifically contemplates a situation where an employee is a participant in more than one 401(k) plan of the employer and provides rules on how to test it. I don't see any problem with having multiple 401(k) plans covering some of the same employees, satisfaction of coverage, BRFs, etc. notwithstanding.

You wouldn't get a deduction on it now, but it would create after-tax basis in the plan. The amount that you repay now would eventually come out tax-free when you take your distribution.

For purposes of the ABPT I would agree that if you are excluding pre-entry comp, then "entry" would have to be the earliest date of participation in any part of the plan.

There is no official guidance on the matter yet, but my understanding is: They can amend the plan now, or any time up through November 30, 2020, to be a 3% SHNEC for 2020, effective retroactive to 1/1/2020 They can amend the plan any time up through December 31, 2021 to be a 4% SHNEC for 2020 Under either of the above, the plan will be exempt from the ADP test for 2020 The plan will be subject to the ACP test on the match, since the ACP safe harbor still requires a notice before the beginning of the plan year

Here is what Section 4.03(b)(1) of our FTWilliam basic plan document says:

Testing Compensation would not typically be defined in the plan document. In general you are free to use any definition of comp that satisfies 414(s) for testing purposes.

Only the benefits accrued as of the effective date of the amendment are protected from cutback. In other words participants have to be 100% vested in all their contributions up through 12/31/2017, and contributions made on or after 1/1/18 would be subject to the new schedule. This is what is legally required, but plans can choose to be more lenient. For example in your case they might choose to let anyone who was a participant as of 12/31/17 remain under the old schedule even with respect to future contributions, so that they do not have to track vesting separately for different portions of their accounts. A well-written amendment should be explicit about to whom the new schedule applies, and when. My guess is that the participant in question is subject to the new vesting schedule since she had no balance on the effective date, but it will depend on exactly what the amendment says.

Can you even imagine ... Facebook already knows everything you look at on the internet, now they know your retirement account too. You look up a medical procedure on the internet, next thing you know you're getting ads that say click here to take a hardship withdrawal from your 401(k).

I don't use Relius, so I can only comment on the general testing question. When grouping EBARs, you treat every person in the range as having an EBAR equal to the midpoint. But, practically speaking, is there any difference? They will all be in the same rate group regardless. Maybe there is a side-effect of banding that I am not thinking of. And, ratherbereading, here it is whether you want it or not: EBAR = contribution * (1 + interest rate) ^ (retirement age - current age) / APR / monthly comp

The portion of the accrued benefit derived from employee contributions is not subject to 415(b). The employee contributions are considered annual additions subject to the DC limits. 1.415(c)-1(a)(2)(ii)(B) and (b)(3).

Based on counting hours, or elapsed time? If elapsed time, the hours don't matter and the service spanning rule means you don't have a period of severance.

Rev Proc 2017-57, sec. 3.02: So, I think this would have to be considered a change in funding method (since it's not a change in data or actuarial assumptions), and I also think it would probably qualify for automatic approval, assuming you meet all the requirements of 2017-56 4.02. The only way to know for sure though would be to apply for approval for a change in funding method. Edit: I went back and re-read your original question. I had been thinking that you were asking about switching from assuming mid-year to using exact dates, but I realize now you were actually asking about going the other direction. That could present an issue for automatic approval, since 2017-56 4.02(5) requires that the new software be "designed to produce results that are no less accurate than the results produced prior to the modifications or change." Assuming all cash flows occur mid-year would seem to be, by design, less accurate than using exact dates.