SSRRS

Hi, Thank you all as always for the insights and help. It's one of those days. Need to file a DB 5500 and schedule SB for 19, 20, 21 , and 22 with the DFVCP. 1.Since it is now 2024, the 2022 can be filed on a 2022 5500. Correct? 2. However, the 2021, 20, and 19 must be filed with using a 2023 form and inputting the plan year on the 2023 form..as 1/1/ 2021 thru 12/31/2021 and the same for 20 and 19? 2. How is the schedule SB e-filed for 19, 20, and 2021? As an attachment only? 3. And what about the attachments that are ussaly attached with the e filing of the SB (assumptions, provisions, etc.)? Thank you.

Hi, Thank you all, as always, for all the insights. Now that the Secure Act allows for a DB Plan to provide for in-service distributions starting at 59.5, is a DB Plan now allowed to adopt an NRA of 60? Or is 62 still the lowest safe harbor NRA for a DB Plan? Thank you.

Cathyw thank you again for pointing this out. This is a much needed relief for many plans, and that would work for almost all plans. The third requirement of "there was not a substantial increase in coverage or benefits for the 5-year period preceding the freeze"...seems to be the one hurdle to get over, although it appears that this refers to a 50% change in the average benefits and not a change due to additional benefit accruals for a another year of service.

Thank you Bri. As always, your vast knowledge is much appreciated. Thank you for pointing out regarding the issue of the 11g amendment favoring only HCEs (adding only the 2 sons of the owner to the plan). Since the plan is frozen and therefore 410(b) does not apply, would this help to allow for the amendment to add only the two sons, so that 40% ie 401(a)26 is properly covered?

Hi All, I am aware that this topic has been discussed before a few times, however, I'm hoping to get some clarity on a particular aspect that I've posted before but has not been addressed. A owner only, husband and wife, frozen DB Plan has been able to cover 40% of all eligible, by just including the owner and his wife (5 total eligible and 40% is 2). After 3 years, they now have to cover an additional 2 employees to cover 40%. There are 2 sons on the census that can be brought into the plan, as the additional 2. The aspect of bringing them into the plan and giving them a benefit of .005 of comp and a 11g amendment, has been discussed before. However, (1) does this mean that the plan is unfrozen, and ALL must be given this .005 benefit accrual or just for the 2 employees that are being added to the plan now? (2) Is this .005 of comp benefit accrual given to them going forward each year or just for the year in which they are added (as plan is still frozen going forward)? Thank you in advance for any insights on this.

Thank you ALL. Your informative insights and knowledge is much appreciated.

Thank you Effen. As always, your analytical mind is much appreciated. However, I think your case is more complicated than the one that I am trying to describe. I think I was not fully clear when I posted. The case is that an owner only DB plan, thr owner (participant) wants to take the max loan allowable of $50,000. The problem is that if he sells some of the pension shares so that he can have the 50,000 cash avaliable to borrow, the plan will incurr a loss, since the market is down. To avoid incurring this loss, instead of withdrawing the loan from the existing plan assets, can he take the 2023 DB contribution (50,000) that he is about to deposit into the plan account, and instead of depositing it in the DB Brokerage account, and then taking it back out as a loan, can he just make out the 50,000 contribution check payable to himself (as if it was first contributed then loaned to himself). He will of course have a loan amortization schedule, loan application, and promissory note to the plan, that will serve as the trail for this contribution/loan. Is this allowable, or must he first actually deposit the 2023 contribution to the plan account? Thank you.

Hi Owner wants to contribute 50k and borrow 50k from DB. Instead of actually makings the contribution and then taking it out as a participant loan, can he just put the 50k into his account with a memo that there was a contribution and then taken out as a loan? Thank you, as always, for any insights.

https://rsmus.com/insights/tax-alerts/2023/irs-extends-tax-filing-deadline-for-hurricane-idalia-victims.html

Thank you Lou. As always, your brilliant and analytical mind is much appreciated. Although a combined rollover might appear to be a distribution in excess of 415, and is NOT the preferred route to use, however, since it can be backed up, the convieant route of one rollover can be taken. I guess, once it is rolled into the wife's IRA, the IRA will report that 4 million was rolled into her IRA, however, that can be backed up as well.

Thank you all as always for the insights. A DB Plan where the owner and his wife are participants is terminating. The owner passed away and his Beneficiary is his wife. Therefore, the wife is entitled to two IRA rollovers (one since she is a participant in the db plan she therefore has a DB benefit, and one rollover as beneficiary of her husband's benefit). The rollovers to the IRA are approximately 1.7 and 2.3 million respectively. ...Is there any reason to rollover each benefit separately, or can one amount of 4 million be rolled from the DB to her IRA? Thank you.

Thank you Effen, and Bri. As usual, your vast knowledge and analytical minds assessed the situation perfectly and much appreciated. Yes, as you say sponsors do benefit in that employee lump sums will go down dramatically. Thus easing the liability burden. We, as well, do not show the PVAB on Participant Statements . However, some clients for their financial statements request separately each year their PVAB. Also are you saying that the pvab is a floor only and to keep the owners pvab consistent you would adopt a plan equivalence of 4.5%,or less? This might be a genius idea if the plan was owner only, and I thank you. However, this plan has some employees as well. So most likely does not pay to lower the plan equivalence below 5%. Rather, we will present it with a disclaimer as you mention. Thank you!

In other words, these fluctuating 417 rates is causing a lot of headaches and explaining. Clients have a hard time understanding how their "benefit" went down by 200k.

Yes indeed. However, the pvab was so high last year because the 417e rates were very low. Therefore, now that the 417 rates have gone up dramatically, even if the 417 pvab is a minimum, and possibly the plan equivalence will now produce a higher pvab to be used (greater of the two) however, the current pvab will still not be as high as the previous years pvab that was based on the very very low 417 rates.

Hi, As always the insights are appreciated. Frozen plan with two owners. Their PVAB is in the 800k range. Next year with the 417(e) rates going up dramatically, the PVAB will be in the 600k range. I understand only the AB cannot be reduced, however, the pvab can. However, will clients be upset that their PVAB is decreasing? Thank you .

Thank you all. It is much appreciated. The money will be given to the participant, the owner, who was the only participant in the plan at that time.

Hi, There is an existing DB Plan with the only participant being the owner. The Corp then hires an employee and wants to join a PEO. How dies this effect the existing DB Plan? Is the new employee really an employee of the Corp? Thank you.

Thank you as always for the insights and knowledgeable responses. A portion of a Plan's assets were discovered as unclaimed funds and returned to the plan sponsor. This was done by a company that specializes in finding unclaimed funds, and this company is charging a fee (commission) for finding these assets. Can plan assets be used to pay this fee? Is this considered a settlor or a non settlor expense? Thank you.

Thank you Bird. Just to clarify... 1. The 60 days is so that the deposit of the plan assets into the Corp account should not be a distribution (similar to when a participant deposits into his account and then within 60 days rolls into an IRA). 2. The plan terminated over 20 years ago. That is why there were no plan doc restatement etc over the years.

Thank you Bill. Much appreciated. If this is not an option (or maybe If a plan document is required and not available anymore from 20 years ago) is it not advisable to deposit it into the sponsor corporate account and then to the IRA, or does the fact that it will be rolled out into the IRA within 60 days, somehow make it more justifiable?

Hi, An MP Plan, owner only, terminated 22 years ago. The owner (plan sponsor and only participant) now received from unclaimed funds, a check made out to the "xyz corporation mny purch" (plan sponsor) for $200,000. There is no plan account anymore. To facilitate a non taxable rollover of this money purchase check to the IRA of the owner, can the check be deposited into the Corp account AND then within 60 days be transfered into the owner's IRA? Similar to a plan distribution that was deposited into the personal account of a participant, that can be transferred to an IRA within 60 days to be a non taxable distribution? Thank you very much for any insights on this.

Problem is ...this late entering of the 5558 into the system is the cause ,some times, of plans getting a late filing penalty notice.

Thanks Nate!

Thabk you again.. Is there a time frame to file an amended return that includes the SB, to avoid the IRS sending the client a letter, re the missing SB. Meaning, does the IRS not send a letter before 15 days or so, or is there no way to know this and just amend asap and hope that it was amended prior to it being picked up? Thank you.

DB Plan owner only . Plan effective 1 1 2014. Owner was working since 2003. Frozen after 12 31 16 year (3/1/2017 frozen) Avg salary 263,000. Terminating Plan now and overfunded. Plan provides to allocate excess assets to the participant up to the 415 limit. Is the 415 Accrued Benefit $5,250 (as the 415 benefit at 2016 was 17,500 and three years of participation at the freeze date of 3/1/2017)? Or is possibly higher due to increases? Thank you very much for any insights.