C. B. Zeller

From the 5500-SF instructions:

Frozen does not necessarily mean no contribution requirement. Even if the assets exceed the funding target right now, and the target normal cost is zero due to no benefits accruing, you could be subject to a minimum contribution in the future due to changes in interest rates and/or fluctuation in the value of assets. The plan is still subject to 430, and still required to have a schedule SB, until it is terminated.

The high 25 rule is part of 401(a)(4), specifically 1.401(a)(4)-5(b). Collectively bargained plans are typically treated as satisfying 401(a)(4), see 1.401(a)(4)-1(c)(5). So I would conclude that a collectively bargained plan is exempt from the high 25 rule.

IRC 401(k)(2)(B) Also, paragraph 1.401(k)-1(d) of the regulations.

Yes No

That's how I read it as well, although I have not actually had to do this yet.

I believe the answer to the original question is yes, assuming that the annuity purchase was handled properly. See SECURE 2.0 sec. 204, section 1.401(a)(9)-5(a)(5)(iv) of the 2024 final regulation, and 1.401(a)(9)-5(a)(5)(v) of the 2024 proposed regulations.

In the absence of any specific guidance, I do not think a plan administrator can be faulted for relying on the plain language of the law. My recollection is also that past disaster relief declarations have been for areas designated for individual assistance, but that does not appear to be the case for QDRDs.

The only guidance the IRS has published on this, as far as I am aware, is this FAQ: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/disaster-relief-frequent-asked-questions-retirement-plans-and-iras-under-the-secure-20-act-of-2022 It doesn't say that a disaster has to be designated for individual assistance, only that it must be declared a "major disaster." Q5. What is a qualified disaster? A5. A qualified disaster is any disaster with respect to which a major disaster has been declared by the President after Dec. 27, 2020 (the date of enactment of the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2020). Use the FEMA disaster declaration search tool, filtering for declaration type: Major Disaster Declaration, to determine if a specific disaster qualifies. Note that, on occasion, the disaster declaration type identified by FEMA may change if new information becomes available regarding the severity of impact of the event on individuals and businesses. For example, a disaster may initially be declared to be an “emergency” but may subsequently be declared to be a “major disaster.” The relief provided under SECURE 2.0 only applies in the case of declared major disasters.

Yes, you are correct. It's in black and white in Rev. Proc. 2018-58 if that helps, section 8 item 26, on page 50. Although the rev proc has not been updated for SECURE, it stands to reason that the deadline to adopt a new plan would be extended likewise.

The 415(b) dollar limit is adjusted for benefit commencement dates later than age 65 using the 417(e) applicable mortality table and 5% interest. Note that the 100% of compensation limit is not adjusted. So by 85 (much earlier than that, in fact) the compensation limit will be lower than the adjusted dollar limit and will control.

Depends on the type of business. Partnership, yes. S-corp, yes as long as they are all 2% shareholders as defined in IRC 1372(b). C-corp, no.

The plans may be optionally (the word in the reg is "permissively") aggregated for coverage and nondiscrimination. If they pass separately, then they do not need to pass combined. If the plans are aggregated for either coverage or nondiscrimination, they must be aggregated for both. In other words, you have to use the same options for both coverage and nondiscrimination. All plans of the employer must be aggregated for the average benefits percentage test. If both plans cover a Key employee, then they are part of a required aggregation group for top heavy purposes.

Yes, that's exactly the kind of design that lends itself to disaggregating otherwise excludable employees.

I assume the plan has an eligibility fail-safe that says a part-time employee who actually completes 1000 hours in a year will enter the plan. Otherwise you have an illegal service-based eligibility requirement. So, all employees who have completed 1000 hours of service would be eligible for the plan. Therefore, you can use the option to disaggregate the otherwise excludable employees, and as long as there are no HCEs who have never completed 1000 hours, it should pass at 100%.

I put your request into Google Gemini and this is what it produced: Pre-USERRA Veterans' Reemployment Rights: A Diachronic Survey Prior to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) of 1994, veterans' reemployment rights were primarily governed by state laws and federal regulations that were often inconsistent and lacked comprehensive protection. This resulted in significant disparities in the treatment of veterans returning to civilian employment. Early 20th Century: World War I: While there were no specific federal laws, some states implemented laws to protect the rights of veterans returning from service. World War II: The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (the GI Bill) provided veterans with educational benefits and loans, but did not explicitly address reemployment rights. Post-World War II: The Korean War and Vietnam War: Federal laws were enacted to provide veterans with certain benefits and protections, but these laws were often limited in scope and did not fully address reemployment issues. The Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974: This law provided veterans with a broader range of benefits, including job training and counseling, but it did not guarantee reemployment rights. Key Challenges Prior to USERRA: Inconsistent state laws: Different states had varying laws regarding veterans' reemployment rights, leading to confusion and uncertainty. Lack of federal oversight: There was no federal agency or law specifically tasked with enforcing veterans' reemployment rights. Limited protections: Existing laws often did not provide adequate protection for veterans returning to civilian employment, particularly in terms of seniority, benefits, and promotions. Impact on Vesting and Benefit Accrual: Inconsistent treatment: Veterans' vesting and benefit accrual rights varied widely depending on state laws and employer policies. Loss of benefits: In some cases, veterans returning to civilian employment faced difficulties in maintaining or regaining their previous benefit entitlements. Discrimination: Veterans were sometimes subject to discrimination in terms of benefits and promotions, particularly if they had been away from their jobs for extended periods. The passage of USERRA in 1994 significantly improved the protections afforded to veterans returning to civilian employment. The act established a federal standard for reemployment rights, including provisions related to seniority, benefits, and promotions. This helped to address many of the challenges faced by veterans prior to USERRA.

A brother-sister controlled group requires 80% or more common control. It doesn't sound like that exists here.

Yes

Section 350 of SECURE 2 provides generous corrections for failures related to auto enrollment. The exemptions to 414A for new and small businesses don't expire immediately. It's 3 years for new businesses and the end of the year after the year in which they normally employ more than 10 employees for small businesses. So there should be plenty of time to get the plan amended once the status changes.

If the failure arose from a casualty, such as a storm, earthquake, etc., then I agree they would qualify. If the system failed due to normal wear and tear it would not be a casualty loss.

In order to be a safe harbor definition of comp, it has to include 125 deferrals as well as 401(k) deferrals. Box 5 is grossed up for 401(k) deferrals but not for 125 deferrals.

The short answer is that the participant must commence distribution of 100% of their accrued benefit no later than their required beginning date. However this is a very complicated topic and there are a lot of pitfalls and nuances to it. Mary Ann Rocco did an excellent 2-part webcast on this topic recently, it's available on-demand from ASEA if you want to learn more. https://www.asppa-net.org/asea/events/webcasts/on-demand/

My first thought is to say, if the transaction is closing on 10/1 for example, then amend the plan to say that for the 2024 plan year, employees who were employed by A on 9/30/2024 are eligible for the contribution. But there are a lot of unanswered questions here. Is A's plan being terminated before the sale? Or is it being merged into B's plan? Does B even have a plan? Will B's employees be eligible in A's plan after the transaction?

If I'm understanding you correctly, your question is about the application of entry dates when determining who is an otherwise excludable employee. The Chief Counsel memo that you referenced essentially says that, in the context of 410(b) and 401(k)(3) (and presumably 401(m)(2) and 401(a)(4) as well, although not explicitly stated), there is more than one way to apply it, so anything reasonable is fine. I don't see why it would be any different for 416, and in the absence of explicit guidance, I am perfectly comfortable using the same interpretation.

You're overthinking it. Nothing in SECURE 2 says that top heavy is "tested separately" and to be honest I don't know where this common misunderstanding is coming from. The top heavy determination is still done based on all participants in the plan. There is no disaggreation for determining the top heavy ratio. What section 310 of SECURE 2 says is that, for plan years starting in 2024 and later, otherwise excludable employees no longer have to receive the defined contribution top heavy minimum. That's it.