Jakyasar

Wife would definitely sever the joinder agreement to avoid multiple employer issues and that is why she was getting a salary to keep the CG alive since there is no more kids attribution for ages under 21. Still not clear about the combined 415 limit when she starts her own DB plan especially when her company, under CG, was funding the DB portion. I think 415 combined limit applies here as her benefits were not provided/funded by husband company. Her benefits are still under her own company. Never encountered this before but logic dictates the combined limit but not sure.

To the gurus out there, what do you think for the following: CB/DC combo, husband and wife, each owning their own companies with children under age 21. Currently wife takes salary under husband's company thus keeping controlled group. There is no ASG issues as they do totally different stuff. Husband makes very high salary but wife's income is low. They both defer maximums. Husband hires an employee who does not want to defer. Plan fails 410b miserably unless the employee gets a high % of contribution which is not quite cost effective. Another option is to reduce the wife's deferral by 40%+. Here is a thought I have for 2027 as 2026 is late (the options will be discussed with the client) Stop paying the wife from husband's company i.e. break up the controlled group for 2027. So she becomes a terminated participant in both plans as of 1/1/2027. The wife already has a benefit in the CB plan and also a balance in the DC plan. May decide to leave the monies in the accounts. Wife starts a new CB and 401k plan separately under her own company effective 1/1/2027. As this is a separate company with no ASG and CG issues effective 1/1/2027, the wife's new CB plan will have no benefit offset from prior CB plan as it was sponsored by husband's company as she was a participating employer - I am not sure this is true as her company was funding her portion under the husband plan. Yes, there will new plan costs but this way she can maximize her deferrals and also keep everything separate, subject to their approval. They can reduce the contributions to the employee and still maintain maximum deferrals. Am I thinking straight on this?

Any takers?

Thank you all for your insights and references and comments

How about in-service? Can it be removed from plan provisions?

Since not a 401k/DC person, based on a conversation with another person who made me doubt myself. For a brand new 401k plan that did not include in-service initially, is it a legal requirement that the plan must provide in-service distribution option at one point, ever? After age 59 1/2 or after NRA?

As I am not a DC person, I need to ask the following question. Need to update a DC document for a one lifer 401k plan from another vendor for a new takeover client. I never include in-service and hardship and would like to remove the options. The owner-participant never utilized them. Are they protected benefits i.e. cannot be removed? Thanks

One lifer DB plan. Assets under 250k. Only 1 year old. I know they made the deposit by 9/15 but never got the information with the date, still pending. No 5500 filing required. However: 1. AFTAP not signed by 9/30 - as plan is only 1 year old, no issues under the first 5 year rule, correct? 2. Schedule SB not signed by 10/15 - what is the penalty for this, if any? - Never had to deal with this before. Thanks

One lifer DB plan, owner only. Owner rolls over the assets into an IRA without informing the TPA/actuary. This was done 45 days ago. The issues: Plan is not terminated so no termination resolutions, required amendments etc No distribution forms are completed Do not know if married, if yes, no spousal consent Rollover was in excess of 415 limits by 100k Attended the new EPCRS webinar today by ASPPA and looks like not correctible, if I understood correctly: By rolling back all assets into the DB plan within 60 days Self correction - SCP For all out there who may have dealt with this situation, what course of action was recommended to the client to take? Thanks

Agreed with both and thank you. To answer Effen's question, if they become an NHCE, accruals will resume as exclusion is specific if and only if an HCE.

Hi 2 scenarios: Scenario 1: DB plan covers a group of employees (group A) but the sponsor wants them excluded effective 1/1/2027. Coverage is not an issue. Do I need to provide them a 204h notice? I was planning to state group A is excluded as of 1/1/2027 in the amendment rather than stating group A's new formula is 0%. I do not see any difference as it is a reduction in benefit and it should have a 204h notice either way. Never did it this way before. Scenario 2: DB plan states HCEs are excluded and all participants received the SPD stating it. 3 years down the road, a non-HCE participant becomes an HCE and no longer receives an accrual, just vesting. Does this participant need a 204h notice? There is a no separate grouping with 0% in the definition of groups, just an exclusion in the eligibility section. Thank you

Having a brain freeze due to 10/15 - worse ever. Have not come across the following in quite sometime, a bit confused. DB plan. Client turned 73 early 2026 so RMD is due 4/1/2027. A two part question with the assumption plan terminates during 2026: Scenario one - distribution occurs during 2026 therefore he needs to take an RMD during 2026, correct? Scenario two: - distribution occurs in 2027, what are the RMD requirements, one for 2026 and one for 2027 as distribution occured during 2027? Thanks

If only the regulations were written by Mr. Spock or a Vulcan legistrator

That I agree but mine was a practical approach question. I have every intention getting an ERISA attorney involved, if I take the case. I just want to find out what other DB/CB gurus or actuaries do in these situations.

That's not a problem.