Employer sponsors a safe harbor 401(k) plan. Employer is closing its doors. It's not being acquired, just going out of business. Because there isn't a merger/acquisition, I don't see any 410(b)(6) help. There isn't a business hardship; the owners are simply retiring. If they terminate mid-year, it would seem they must meet top heavy and are subject to ADP testing. Agree?

[Advert.]

The rules regarding Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) and Plan Distributions can be confusing and complicated. Join us to learn how to make RMDs and Plan distributions as simple as possible. Register Now!

Client got a CP 220 notice stating the IRS made changes to their return and owes $2,200+. Of course no changes are specified or the reason for the penalty. (It reads like a scam.) I saw an earlier thread on this and realize it's probably for a "late" filing...but this was a 2011 return, filed Oct 15, 2012. We didn't handle the plan at the time, so don't have proof of filing the extension and doubt we can get it, but I think we can beat the rap; just looking for the fastest way to do so -- does(n't) the statute of limitations cover this?

A participant in a DC plan refuses to have either an employee or an employer account. This may have to do with religious reasons against interest-bearing accounts. The plan is not top heavy, but it's a 3% SHNEC. He did not sign a waiver prior to becoming eligible in the plan. How to resolve this?

DB plan offer a Retroactive Annuity Starting Date. When calculating the make-up payment, is the basis for the amount of the payment the Normal Form of Payment under the plan, or the actual form of payment chosen by the participant?

Account treats two companies as totally separate entities. The companies in addition to sharing the same 6 digit SIC code and both essentially are in the carting/waste removal business. 1 company owned 50/50 by husband and wife. Company 2 owned 50/50 by their two sons, over 21 years of age. The two sons, in addition, work for Company [1] In addition, there is one shared employee. We have been treating the plans as a controlled group/ASG and combining the two for (a)(4) as both plans are new comparability PSPs. CPA does not agree. Is there a specific example in the regs I can show this guy?

Say a parent company with two operating subsidiaries sponsors a nonqualified plan in which balances pay out upon the first to occur of death, disability, severance, or change in control. There are participants employed by the parent company directly in addition to the two subs. The plan's change in control definition is sale of 50% or more of parent's stock or parent's assets. On a FMV basis, Sub 1 accounts for 70% of parent company's assets; Sub 2 accounts for the other 30%. Parent company sells Sub 1 and triggers a change in control for parent company employees. Parent company will continue running Sub 2 and will continue to employ the same parent-company employees. Has anyone seen a scenario like this where the plan balances are paid out because of the change in control, but the plan is not otherwise terminated? So, assuming no amendments to the plan before the change in control, the existing balances would be forced out, then the parent-company employees could start deferring again? Technically it's just a permissible payment trigger that causes the distribution of prior balances, so I see no reason why the plan couldn't continue. Thoughts?

I've got a small plan (<10 participants in self-directed brokerage accounts) that was paid out in 2016, and we filed a final 5500 for it in 2016. Just got a statement for January 2018 that there was a fee refund of $2K to the doctor (and him only), so the account was reopened by the brokerage firm and then immediately paid out to him with withholding. Great! Brokerage firm also remitted withholding and will prepare the 1099-R. Our initial thought is that since it was a plan account, it still is a plan account and therefore this transaction is a transaction in the plan. So it needs to be reported on a 5500... probably an EZ, since there's only one participant in the plan for 2018. But then we just skip 2017 altogether?