truphao

agree, it could have been done at Plan's inception but not now

No CG but watch out for potential ASG issues if businesses are "overlapping". Yes, employing a spouse would solve 401(a)(26).

I believe life annuity payments are exempt under 72(t). Furthermore, payment to safety public employees are explicítely exempt if over age 50. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/substantially-equal-periodic-payments

my vote is 9/30

Because when it gets complicated, it's always the actuary who should know, no matter the subject . However, this one clearly falls under the purview of a CPA.

Thank you Peter, well explained.

Is the Beneficiary desigantion form required to be notarized if the beneficiary is a spouse? Is it even needed for all practical purposes? Our plan docs name spouse as a default beneficiary in the pecking order. Interested to hear thoughts and opinions.....

I believe "eligible employee" means "non-HCE" only, which would preclude the owner. Speaking form memory, would need to go back to the law.

yes, thank you - had a total balckout on this one.

S corporation, two owners - father and son, both are 50% shareholders, no other employees. Is 5500-EZ or 5500-SF required? In prior years EZ was filed but I do not think it is correct and SF is required? Anything else that I might be missing?

here is a practical suggestion (given the limitation of being "uneditable") - I would not have a problem using a PV of benefit accrual using a reasonably conservative interest rate assumption (5.50%?, may be 6.0%?) as long as there is a footnote somewhere disclosing "this is for illustration purposes only" and "the actual value will depend on future interest rates".

exclude by employment classification if possible, impose hours to get an accrual, definitaly exclude pre-effective date sevice for vesting.

Restore or not is spelled out in your Plan Document/Adoption Agreement. It is a choice in the AA.

looking for ERISA attoney specializing in public sector reference, Oregon. You can DM if you prefer. TIA.

Participation can be tested on accrued-to-date method. That might do the trick for the last year of the Plan.

I believe you have to follow the plan terms. If document says, allocate, then allocate. If document says "revert to employer" I believe you can give it all to the owner assuming the general test for the year is passed.

contributions reporting on SB demonstrates compliance with the minimum funding standards. Thus, it ought to be reported on 2023 5500, SB, etc. I agree with smartness of Lou and Draper

Been there on several occasions. Normally I would send the docs an “easy read” on ASG from ASSPA and a hard one from IRS and point out a few most relevant slides with a closing recommendation to engage an ERISA council. It is what it is.

I do not believe bank has an authority to force the change from EIN to SSN. They can definitely terminate servicing the account altogether though. Talking to the bank is likely to yield nothing, just move the money as others said. Schwab for example would set it up in couple of days and you client can invest in bank products (cds and such) using the brokerage platform. Arguing with a bank might be worth only to waive any kind of termination/transfer fee.

yo creo que si, it requires modifications on the partnership agreement level.

either way should be really fine.

operational failure in accordance with plan doc terms, potential failure of ADP/ACP, potential failure of TH test, and I hope a need to find another TPA

he will not

Thank you all. Just to confirm staying at 95% / 5% ownership would trigger a TH allocation to the 5% partner, correct?

Let's focus on the ownership tests only - It is my understanding that for a person to be considered an HCE the ownership level is at 5%, and for a person to be considered a key employee the threshold is at "more than 5%". So, if for a two-person partnership, setting up the ownership level at 5.01% and 94.99% avoids both the non-discrim and top-heavy tests. Am I correct?