truphao

John F, thank you for confirming, this is my logic as well but I wanted to make sure I am not overlooking anything impofrtant.

S corp, State of CT, H&W, Husband is 100% Owner of the business, both H and W are receiving W-2. The client wishes to decrease the benefit formula for 2024 (<1,000 hrs as of now). Is 204(h) Notice required? I do not believe so, am I wrong?

Wow, this is really something. Let’s say a clueless (or pretending to be clueless) MD participates in hospital 401k plans and also has a solo 401 from his side-gig. On January 1 he defers full $30,000 as Roth in each plan. He invests both deferrals into the riskiest investment option (or hedging one investment with another one). In plan #1 the investment is worth 3,000 on December 31. In another plan it is worth $300,000. He chooses to treat as excess the first one. Unless I am missing something big, this is a pretty good gambling/hedging/arbitraging option. Please demolish my dirty thoughts.

I second that. This is a huge loss to the retirement benefit practitioners community. Let him rest in peace and condolences to his family.

It has been happening a lot and that is the exact approach we have been taking - just throw all the entities into the Plan, check the CG box and change the adopting ER/main entity to be the most recent one. It requires participation/joinder agreement for other/old entities.

I apologize but I am not following, it was a rough day. Would you, please, elaborate on where do you see CODA?

it is after-tax, not 414(h)

To be able to purchase an additional annuity upon retirement. You can credit either actual ROR for the Trust or the pre-determined rate like 5% for example. It is a design issue, every approach has pros and cons. I do have a municipal entity client that does exactly that, we are the actuaries, plan doc is handled by attorneys.

don't you dare to deprive the sales rep of his commissions! Their job is to sell, and the implementation is your problem to figure out

You follow the plan terms but you need to test the total allocation for the year.

It was a really bad example on my part, here is an attempt #2: DOH = 3/29/2023, DOP = 7/1/2024 (dual entry), but will be statutory excludable until 9/29/2024.

The maximum statutory exclusion is 21 & 1 plus 6 months waiting, isn't it? For example, somebody hired 9/29/2022 is statutory excludable until 3/29/2024 although DOP = 1/1/2024.

just want to add that it smells like a document failure; generally those are not eligible for self-correction.

I aslo recommend carefully reviewing the "stable value" contract language with the insurance carrier to see if there are any exceptions applicable to MVA trigger on account of special circumstances (such as merger, benefit payments, etc.)

I am tinkering with doing it by Group. b1 also gives one year, which should be enough.

since I asked I might as well post the answer - these are the options in the Datair PD System:

415 is OK in my case, it has been acounted for already but thank you.

that is exaclty right - have few "good" NHCEs entering the Plan in 2024 and 2025. How does one define an OB in relationship to the past service? Has it ever been presented at NIPA/ASPPA/CCA meetings?

is there any decent presentation on doing the CB Plan with an opening Balance related to prior service?

start-up Combo (CB and PS) Plans with 1/1/2023 effective date. Owner started his business back in 2017. Employees have been hired in 2021 and 2022. Whar are the issues to rely on Accrued-To-Date testing method for this situation to pass 2023 tests?

agreed, I agree with Corey as well regarding the spin-off, it might be the most practical approach.

TPABob, I totally agree, having a separate investment account for Roth is much better. In addition, it allows for more aggressive investment strategy of Roth money which is an additional value from the clinet perspective. The problem is that some clients/advisors are not capable of handling the proper paperwork and moving the money process. Therefore, we have been using one account approach until at least Roth account grows to a meaningfull size.

I am guessing it is an auto-generated notice. You must file 945 if you have to file but you do not. Just ignore it? Paul, the IRS rep will not discuss the plan related issues in details unless the practioners provides a POA

I know it has been discussed on many occasions before and I have searched through the prior threads. But I can't make sense of some elements so I decided to post. We know that one cannot use Form 5305 SEP if "Currently maintain any other qualified retirement plan. This does not prevent you from maintaining another SEP." Q1: Can anyone explain the logic behind these instructions or give a reference to the legislative history/sections of the Code which resulted in such? Q2: These instructions clearly indicate you cannot establish the SEP if DB exists but why do practitioners decide it is prohibited to establish a DB plan if SEP already existed? Q3: What is the meaning of the word maintain" in this context? Is it in the context of "existing" or "deduction"? In other words, is it OK to establish a new DB Plan in 2024 effective for 2023 (when SEP existed) but not take any deductions for contributions made to DB Plan for 2023? Q4: What are the ramifications if a taxpayer ends up having SEP and DB Plan for 2023 (with no deduction is taken for DB contributions for 2023 tax year)? What exactly is the nature of the failure and what are the penalties?

Lou, thank you so much - I am glad I asked since I had that gut feeling I am missing something. I have totally forgot about the 4/15 deadline for adoption, was thinking we would have plenty of time . Amending taxes definitely works but I suspect the prospect will be reluctant, so that might not be the best approach from practical/relationship perspective. I am going after that double-up deduction approach since it gives an extra year of participation for 415 and the prospect is looking to slow down in 4-5 years.