jgerardy

Thanks Peter!

So in essence, as long as they have additional common law employees taking home a W-2 they would fall under this determination: "Any employee benefit plan within the meaning of title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974" therefore not determined to be an H.R. 10 plan for the purposes of being able to invest in a CIT qualified as a QIB? Sorry, I'm punching above my weight class in regards to this. Also, as a point of clarity would any sole-prop or partnership setup for owners then be the only plans still qualifying as an H.R. 10 plan? I appreciate your help!

Is a sole-proprietorship or partnership who wants to establish a 401(k) considered a Keogh plan? My understanding is there is no longer a distinction as they are now qualified plans that include a self-employed individual. If that is the case, I would like to confirm that SEC rule 144A does not apply then to restrictions regarding the use of CIT's for these plans.