truphao

no, it fails. 1.401(a)(26)-5(a) thows you into 1.410(a)(b)(1) which requires an increase in accrued benefit (assuming exceptions do not apply):

pay attention to the language in BOTH plans. Minimu required is 3.0% but this can get overruled by the "bad" Plan Doc language - I have seen it on many ocasions.

Cash Balance Formula ususally relies on 133 1/3% rule, I do not belive I have seen anything else for small plans. It is only the "large" plans when you are trying to design pay credits based on age/service/points will ocasionally fail 133 1/3 rule.

I did and am waiting for a response......Will post an aswer once I receive it.

Employee enters the CB Plan on 1/1/2021. Plan requires 1,000 hours to earn a Pay Credit. Works 1,100 hours in 2021, 1,100 hours in 2022, 900 hours in 2023 and 900 hours in 2024. 12/31/2024 accrued benefit is $100/month, his average comp is $60,000. I think he would pass the 401(a)(26) on accrued-to-date method. The system (Datair) calculates his accrual rate correctly but marks him as "non-benefiting". What am I missing here?

Integrate into data collection process, anticipate and respect their professional needs and deadlines, engage them into post-cycle planning process. To sum it up - COMMUNICATE.

Form 5500-EZ instructions do not refer to "other qualified plans" but rather to "other plans maintained by...". SEP is indeed an indivudal IRA but it is established and maintained by a business entity.....My vote is to count the assets in SEP toward the 250K threshold...

Thank you Belgarath, I am trying to convince myself that this is a CG so I do not have to go down the rabbit hole of ASG

Company A, Father owns 50%, Son own 50%. Company also employs son's mother and son's wife. Company B is 100% owns by mother, mother and father are not married. This is a B/S CG, right?

yes, if there is a cchange in both the firm and the actuary

not sure if 204(h) is applicable to an Owner-only Plan. Although the regulations do not exempt Onwer-only situations explicitely but it is not an ERISA plan.

not "may be" but "highly likely"

if it is a DB Plan, then the question is "Why?" What are you trying to accomplish? If the objective is to increase the benefits for NHCEs, you can also accomplish that by increasing the benefit retroactively.

post-mark (either physical or electronic) governs.

How long did it take the PBGC to make the determination?

I am voting for 120K as well, but please refer back to AA regarding inclusio/exclusion elements.

a small independent pharmacy. Is it a subject to Title IV or not?

this is a part of your Funding Method. The Funding Method includes the definition of the Entry Age, I believe all of those above are reasonable unless you get some wierd results (in actuarial sense) , then you should step back and re-evaluate. The best part is that you get to be an actuary again rather than a box-checker

I think Lou is correct unless there is a special exmption for 403(b)s which I amnot aware of.

I love this "re-terminating the Plan" terminology

just not a thing. The backdoor approach is via doing in-service distributions to their 401(k) and doing Roth conversions there. Devil is in details.

yes, but watch out for minimum TH requirements (if the Plan is TH).

curious if there is any additional development on this subject. In particular, I am asking if it is OK to improve the benefit/Pay Credit for the Owner after December 31, 2024 and reflect the increased benefit in 12/31/2024 valuation for 404 purposes.

let's not overlook that the Trust might have been already created when somebody (the TPA?) has apllied for the EIN for the Trust. Thus, IRS "might already know" about the Trust. I am totally with Lou regarding the codes of ethics and Standards of Actuarial Practice that certified actuaries must (and should want to) live by. This mess is really messy. I personally would not be comfortable touching this without an ERISA counsel. Regarding who is here to blame - this is definitely a client's fault for dropping the ball. Nevertheless, the TPA should have taken some action - IMHO. This sentense "The Administrator was under the impression that a 5500 wasn't needed until the assets got to $250k" highlights the issue.

no AFTAP certifications for 3 years either - not sure if there are any practical implications or not (< 5years), but let's add this to the list for fun.