Nate S

The $922.50 should remain deferral monies, that was the respective amount from the 1/12 estimated payroll. It doesn't not become deferrals merely because the '21 W-2 were incorrect as a result of the excess payment through payroll. Normally, a deposit following 1/26 would be more than 7 business days after 1/12 and therefore you would have a late deferral situation. However, the caveat is that the clock starts when the deferral can be segregated from the general assets of the employer, and without the bank account, and without the payroll calculation of the actual deferral amount, I would argue that the segregation date is therefore 1/26; and if deposited immediately thereafter, even the 1/12 amount is still timely. Sounds like the Plan is fine, I think you have a box 12 error on the w-2.

Maybe not. Your comments lead me to believe you are making the same error as the OP in the cited thread and you've fixated on compensation definitions. Go instead to the deferral section of your document and search for non-payable income treatment for items including imputed, fringe benefits, and tips.

Sounds like they met statutory eligibility, and assuming no BIS, can't have their service wiped away. Any contribution expected for 2022? If not, you have a discontinuance and will need to make sure the participant is 100% vested as of 12/31/22. And yes, stuck with 5500/SF, no EZ allowed while they're still employed.

Yes, the 5500EZ instructions say that the SB must be completed before the filing due date, not the filing date itself. "If the plan is a defined benefit plan, the enrolled actuary must complete and sign the 2021 Schedule SB (Form 5500) and forward it no later than the filing due date to the person responsible for filing Form 5500-EZ." You may have to amend based on your reported 10a vs the completed SB.

Did you check the Plan Document?

I'd look at it similar to an RMD, the determination value is fixed to the anniversary date, you can't chase the minimum fractional value throughout the distribution period. If this is a question and you have an IDP doc, stick that aspect into the provision. It's definitely determinable and if strictly followed would be non-discriminatory.

Step 1: re-test, Step 2: repeat Step 1 until test passes, Step 3: new client signs fat consulting check Never, ever, unless paid to do so, rely on someone else's test.

Right, if its prior year testing you can only use a qnec deposited during the plan year.

Besides, the earning of income still triggers the deferral eligibility; service-less income is a coverage question. But putting aside non sequiturs, what did you mean by the document provides no conditions for eligibility? There can be miles of leeway between explicitly saying no conditions, and not electing any. Does the document actually check off the no age or service requirements option?

Transfer those balance out of the participant-directed portion of the trust, and aggregate them all into a low-fee trustee-directed brokerage account. Amend the document if necessary. RK fees are almost always excessive when allocated to small balances, and any advisory fees are excessive compared to the annual account maintenance fee on the brokerage investment.

Only to the extent that your Plan is providing an ongoing income stream. Lump sum distributions should not be considered.

I'm going to err on the side of desperate moron, because not only is he lying(or not understanding?) about the two fields; his misrepresentation undermines his own selling ability!! Instead or recognizing that 8 is an explicit expense, and 10 is an implicit expense that reduces the earnings paid out by the investment (ie opportunity cost); he's limiting his own cost savings analysis to just one of the amounts. Actually, if a fiduciary did make a decision based on such a flawed examination could you have a breach of duty? Come on, time to spill the beans on this joker; who knows what other damage he could be causing if not checked!!

Can a Sponsor/Plan Administrator agree to a settlement that violates the terms of the Plan? Not specific, just curious.

Anyone remember your SAT's: Houseboat is to Rivers as RV is to Roads; or Propeller is to Water as Wheel is to Road; or Steering Wheel is to Rudder as Power Steering is to Live Independent Suspension

How else to you prove your primary residence, utilities, mailing address, voter registration, driver's license(!!), etc. Might be after-the-fact if they're downsizing, but its all the same otherwise. Snowbirds aren't all condo owners in the off-season, plenty of them just move their "home" from campground to campground.

Outrage??? Nay, nay, this is hilarious; they have just handed you the greatest marketing tool ever, evidence of their own incompetence!! 1) This firm's EIN is public record and all over any 5500 filing that had to report their fees; feel free to reach out to those Plan Sponsors to sell your own more knowledgeable services!! 2) Are they an insurance company? If so their marketing materials have to pass strict truth/factual metrics; you should report this issue to their home state insurance commission, and your clients state commission, if different! 3) Laugh with your clients; share the good news with them that they've retained you, who knows better than many of your competitors, competitors who were brazen enough to put their own incompetence in writing! BTW, what provider is this so we can all protect any mutual clients we may have with them?

How old were the children as of 12/31/2021? How are you defining part-time, less than X hours? Please clarify regarding the document eligibility, elected no minimum age/service, made no election whatsoever, or document is written as no age/service condition?

Was that limit specific to 2021? If so was it for ADP purposes, and did they actually pass or fail considering the "excess" amounts?

Payroll companies say and do a lot of stupid things harmful to Plans and employees. Talk to a supervisor, someone with ASPPA credentials(ERPA's in particular are sensitive to following IRS guidance), or their legal team.

@C. B. Zeller yes I believe that's the basis for this provision, and also assuming you've otherwise satisfied 1.461-1(a)(2) for accrual deductibility. I know I briefly worked on one pension plan that used this arrangement, but 20 years later I know I can't locate it. Otherwise, my wife was employed by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, their pension would have determination letters and multiple audits over the years (it still survives today as the "Legacy" Pfizer Pension, albeit frozen since 2009). @Luke Bailey @Peter Gulia no, I don't think the few weeks extended much past the first week of February, if that far. Based on payroll timing limits, the longest practice application would be end of January. Biggest reason for the delay that I can think of was for one-time deferral elections. @BelgarathUltimately, no I don't think such a bonus would be part of the 2022 W-2, those regs are pretty clear that its paid within the limitation year only. Could it have practical applications to an employer allocation; yes. Could it be used in a projection; why not, I'll project whatever you pay me to. Could you use it to manipulate compensation basis for 401(a)(4) testing; maybe if you satisfied 461 accrual rules, felt it meet the 415 timing requirement, and passed 414.

Agreed on the W-2; something about the income inclusion period is sticking with me though..., might have to go dig up some very old plan docs

Ahhh, but thirds mean we are dealing with 9's. Anyone with a mathematical background can tell you that 99.99% does equal 1, so no extra decimal, penny, farthing, or bit is required. Try it on your calculator, it can do that calc just fine!

I feel like I'm remembering something about a bonus, commission, or similar payment; that if part of a pre-defined program and tied to prior year performance, then as long as it was paid within a few weeks of year end, it would count as compensation towards that prior year.(Not on the W-2 though, just for Plan purposes!) Not sure if it was limited to a DB plan, but pretty sure my wife benefitted this way under a pension years ago

Perhaps check the Plan Document? The Relius Cycle-3 doc seems to have loose enough language that you could reasonably conclude that a salary deferral election is not specific to a named plan, but that the compensation to be deferred against is instead dependent upon the Plan. This would allow you to maintain and transfer elections from Plan to Plan for a plan merger, or termination and newly adopted Plan. This would require significant foresight though, proper administrative documentation, timely notice, and willing acceptance of thusly modified affirmative elections.

I agree, a resolution is not binding, the action to be undertaken as a result of the resolution still has to occur.