Jakyasar

Hi DB plan, one lifer, EOY val. Plan is slightly underfunded but creating a large required contribution which will make it over funded. Can I switch to BOY val with the above status? Thanks

Likewise

The problem, which I think, no ownership in the Husband LLC (or payroll) so probably will need to rely on ASG. I will discuss the payroll option (I agree is the cleanest way but what is the minimum payroll to make it CG/ASG, Hmmm) It is not for my comfort, it is for them and make sure that I can properly/correctly administer the plans. I have no issues with multiple SB's. But it is one 5500SF, correct? Thank you for clarifying the SB/MB confusion on my part. Sorry for these questions as I never dealt with this in my career.

One more Q. Effective 1/1/2024 no longer CG. When does it need to be fixed so that continues to be a CG (or ASG)? For example, if no action is taken till March 1, 2024, can 2024 still be CG/ASG with the assumption that January and February will be a multiple employer plan?

Follow up Q If CG is not an option (some cross ownership), would ASG be ok i.e. some cross biz? Thinking of legitimate ways of doing this and keeping them as a single employer.

Thank you for your input and confirmation, happy and healthy New Year and holidays

Hi Bill Thank you for the input which I assume is effective for 2024, correct? Assuming that we cannot force the CG issue, I am assuming we enter into the multiple employer arena, correct?

Hi Husband LLC (filing as an S-Corp and owned 100% by Husband) Wife LLC (filing as a sole-prop) Neither entity have employees. No ASG issues. They have children under age 21 Setting up DC and CB plans for 2023. They are both adopting the plans. Husband LLC will fund his own portion of the DC and CB and Wife LLC will fund her own portion of the DC and CB. My understanding: For 2023, they are a CG so can file as a single employer using 5500-EZ and also can use Schedule SB, correct? For 2024, they are no longer CG as SECURE 2.0 removed the under age 21 issue based on 1563e (finally). How do they need to file for 2024 and also do I need to use SB or MB? This is a first for me. Thanks for your comments.

When you say separation, is it a divorce? Are they already legally separated? A good lawyer will tell you what can be done. Or, draft a legal agreement (assuming no QDRO will be issued) that provides how the assets will be divided upon a divorce. Such a sticky situation.

Also, add that there will be fees deducted from the IRA for maintaining it

Of course, the CB does not benefit the owners on a maximum level where all little guys get a minimal benefit, right? You have to be very careful with BRF issues. ErnigeG explained quite well however, make sure to read what the plan document states for death benefit, generally should state face amount+PVAB-cash value. One correction, PS 58 cost.

71,779, depending on what actuarial assumptions you use for the CB, may not generate an AB that is at 415 limit however, since you know that for 2023, 71,779 is the max 415 limit, you can simply stick to it but can deposit more and apply for future years, 404 certainly allows it. But the client will need to be explained that, just because they put in more than the 415 limit does not mean what they deposited can be paid out. Big difference between increasing the hypothetical balance versus increasing the contribution under 404. My 2 cents are always deal with deductible limit first and then increase the pay credit in the future to match. FWIW

I have dealt with this numerous times when the client said "I do not like it". My response was, "you knew this and were told minimum 3 years (some push to 5 years), committed to it in writing." "If you want to shut down because you do not want it and not stick around for 3 years, then either go away or provide me a letter stating that you are voluntarily terminating the plan against TPA's advice and take full responsibility for any action that may be brought against you by the IRS". As an alternative, I tell them to freeze the plan, stick around for another year or so and then terminate but no guarantees that IRS, upon an audit, will be happy about it. Of course, a financial instability that can be backed up is no issue, easily defendable, life happens. This biz became the ultimate CYA.

First distribution year was prior to 2022.

Hi DB plan - one lifer Client takes full annual RMD on 4/1/2023 instead of monthly (12x) Client decides to terminate the plan today and wants to rollover prior to 12/31/2023. No further RMD is due, correct? Thanks

Good question and answer. Simply exclude, no complications.

Hi This is a new one for me. Law firm Partnership XYZ is splitting (no PBGC coverage). Currently sponsor a DB and DC plans. 2 partners and a bunch of employees. Partner Mary wants to keep the current plans. Partner Joe wants to set up his own DB/DC combo in his new company. Joe also will take a few employees with him. Other than treating Joe and a few employees as terminated and carrying over the benefits accrued in the DB plan to the new law firm, is there anyway to transfer DB benefits for Joe and the employees coming with him? Or new plan(s) has to be set up for Joe's new company? For the DC plan which has deferrals+SH+PS, if a new plan needs to be established for 2023, can SH still be set up for 2023? Any suggestions/experience with this situation is appreciated. Thanks

A follow up question Because Joe was already part of the cb plan, he would still need to get 5% of top heavy under the dc plan, correct? If he was never eligible to participate in the cb plan, he would only get 3% under the dc plan. thanks

Hi CB plan excludes non-owner HCEs. Joe has been an employee/participant for the past 3 years and getting CB pay credit. He becomes an HCE for 2023 under lookback rules. This means, for 2023, Joe does not get a pay credit, correct? Top heavy provided under DC plan. Thanks

"In addition, although there is currently some ambiguity around when this becomes effective, you will (eventually) be able to adopt an amendment retroactively to fix this under 401(b)(3) (as added by SECURE 2.0 sec. 316) without the additional restrictions of -11(g)." I do not think we know yet if this is applicable for an amendment adopted in 2024 and it is retro for 2023. At ASPPA this was still an open item, last I remember (I may be wrong in remembering). It is definitely valid for an amendment adopted in 2025 retro to 2024. 11-g will be a thing of the past. Still waiting on regulations though and see how restrictive this amendment is going to be, if any. To avoid any issues, as Corey suggested, fix it in during 2023 and be done with especially if you have any NHCEs where 11-g is not going to pass if you only provide it to HCE. Another point, if you wait till 2024 to have an 11-g amendment (assuming you cannot retroactively amend as per above) and the document has an automatic fail safe language (no document should have this IMHO), you may have issues depending on how it is written.

To add what Corey very clearly stated: If the employee(s) are not owners, it is not up to them to be included/excluded unless the document provides a one irrevocable election for not participating. Be careful though, it means nothing as they will be included in all testing. Also, some employers negotiate a payment package with their prospective employees who are not owners. I personally frown upon on this but there are some out there state that it is ok as part of payment package. In essence you are asking the employee to fund their own pension plan, hmmmmm. There is also a big difference between electing not to participate and electing not to contribute. Assuming to are referring to owners/partners, electing not to participate is fine but electing not to contribute when you are already a participant, may not fly here. This can be a big issue in a partnership. This is not a 401k election you are referring to here, you have to be very careful what and if you allow the client to do. Be very careful with your wording, if I may suggest. Either you are in or excluded categorically. another 2 cents of mine.

What am I missing here? Why is the participant making the contribution unless is the owner? Is the balance vested to be rolled over? As Corey stated, MASD may be a big issue especially if the participant is at 415 limit. Also, if at 415 limit then may not be getting any additional allocation, all facts and circumstances. Also, as Corey stated, you need to check the AFTAP certification - 436 rules and also do the 110% test, if the participant is HCE. The document has to allow it. Just my 2 cents

Yes, that is what I see as well

Interesting. My software's AFN does not cover some of the information on SAR like the name of the institution holding the monies. May be other AFN's prepared thru other software do. I will see once what was done by the other TPA once I get them.

Hi Bri Are you saying no SAR for PBGC covered plans, could not quite understand what you stated?