Can a 401(k) plan sponsor restrict investment in the employer stock fund to current employees only? i.e. require terminated employees to exit the employer stock fund when they terminate employment?

Agent wants to put insurance in the DB Part of the DB/DC Plan for Mr. Big. Since the DB Plan, on its own, is a discriminatory arrangement, wouldn't putting in insurance at 100x proj monthly benefit be a discriminatory ancillary benefit? Is there a way to make this work? Mandatory insurance in the DC Plan which the employees and cannot waive out of the coverage? Thank you for any thoughts.

https://content.next.westlaw.com/w-017-1687?isplcus=true&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1 Quote "The group or association is not a bank or trust company, insurance issuer, broker-dealer, or other similar financial services firm (including pension record keepers and third-party administrators), or owned or controlled by such an entity or any subsidiary or affiliate of such an entity, other than to the extent such an entity, subsidiary, or affiliate participates in the group or association as an employer member of the group or association." So can we sponsor a MEP as long as our own company's 401(k) Plan is a participating employer?

We just submitted a 5500-SF for DFVCP today and the client informed that the EIN is incorrect. Could someone please tell me how to prepare an amended DFVCP filing?

DC plan has a last day requirement for nonelective allocations. DC plan gives a SH match, not a 3% SH nonelective. The DB and DC Plans are top-heavy. The plans are written to say that employees in both plans receive 5% top-heavy minimum in the DC plan. Plans are combined for coverage and 401(a)(4) testing. Assume coverage and 401a26 are not problems, even is a handful of employees terminate. No one has under one year, so OEE is not in play here. 1. Suppose one non-key HCE is excluded by name or job class from the cash balance plan, eligible for the 401(k)/PS plan, but not deferring. That HCE terminates after working 1,000 hours. As an HCE, the gateway minimum does not apply. But, as a non-key employee, because they are not employed on the last day, no top-heavy allocation is required even though the plans are aggregated? 2. Now suppose a NHCE (also non-key) is excluded by name or job class from the cash balance plan, eligible for the 401(k)/PS plan, but not deferring. This NHCE also terminates after working 1,000 hours. As a non-key employee, because they are not employed on the last day, no top-heavy allocation is required? If that is true, then as an NHCE, they must receive the minimum gateway, but since the are not receiving any nonelective allocation, the gateway minimum is not triggered, so no allocation? Please confirm or please set me straight on this. Thanks!

Client has just informed us that he sold his business back in February 2018. It was an asset sale and last check issued by client was dated 2/23/18. We are NOW doing the plan termination paperwork (a bit late, as you can see) and are having issues with termination effective date. Normally you cannot terminate a 401k plan retroactively but I think using an October 30, 2018 date leads to incorrect pro-rata compensation for plan purposes. Example, owner decides to pay himself 200,000 with last check in February. If termination date is February 23th, then pro-rata compensation limit for plan purposes would be 40,684.93 (54 days out of 365 days). But, if we use a 10/31/2018 term date, pro-rata compensation limit for plan purposes would be $229,041 (304 out of 365 days). And since owner's compensation is 200,000, limitation compensation matters. Any thoughts?

I have a 4% Enhanced Match Safe Harbor Plan where the document provides for a discretionary integrated profit sharing allocation. the 2018 SH Notice just says "refer to the SPD" under the heading of non Safe Harbor Employer contributions. Do you think I can change the 2018 profit sharing contribution to be cross tested so that the two owners can maximize their benefits ?

Just started a new job as an HR Generalist and we've discovered that our Employer failed to file 1094-C and 1095-C with the IRS. We are a self-insured ALE. The entire department retired this summer, we don't know what the IRS has been told. I heard we got a letter that our extension was denied, but I don't have a copy of the letter. I don't have records of any other correspondence. The employees did receive their forms. I am not sure where to start with the IRS.

Company A was part of a control group and was a participating employer in Plan A (company A was not the main sponsor). Plan involved is a 5/31 Fiscal Year End Plan. FYI: Plan A is a Profit Sharing only plan. Company A' s ownership changes effective 11/1/2018 and is no longer a member of the control group and intends to terminate participating employer agreement effective 10/31/2018 and wants to start its own Profit Sharing only plan. Company A intends to sponsor a 5/31 Fiscal Year End Plan as well. The question is: Can Company A's plan be effective 6/1/208 so that full year compensation can be used in determining PS allocation at 5/31/2019 OR does the plan's effective date need to be 11/1/2018 due to prior participation in Plan A?

My understanding always was that Plans weren't required to withhold 20% on distributions under $200. However I pulled up the 2018 Publication 15-A and in Chapter 8 it's not listed as an exception for the 20% withholding. All that it says is: Exceptions. Distributions that are (a) required minimum distributions, (b) one of a specified series of equal payments, or (c) qualifying "hardship" distributions aren't "eligible rollover distributions" and aren't subject to the mandatory 20% federal income tax withholding. Does that mean that we should withhold the 20%, even on a "small" distribution or is it listed somewhere else as an exception? Thanks again everyone!

New 401(k) Safe Harbor Plan with effective Date October 1, 2018. Plan Year Ends 12.31.2018 so a 3 month plan year. According to the regulations the new plan must be in place for 3 months to meet the safe harbor provision: 1.401(k)-3(e)(2) Initial plan year. A newly established plan (other than a successor plan within the meaning of �1.401(k)-2(c)(2)(iii)) will not be treated as violating the requirements of this paragraph (e) merely because the plan year is less than 12 months, provided that the plan year is at least 3 months long (or, in the case of a newly established employer that establishes the plan as soon as administratively feasible after the employer comes into existence, a shorter period). Similarly, a cash or deferred arrangement will not fail to satisfy the requirement of this paragraph (e) if it is added to an existing profit sharing, stock bonus, or pre-ERISA money purchase pension plan for the first time during that year provided that-- (i) The plan is not a successor plan; and (ii) The cash or deferred arrangement is made effective no later than 3 months prior to the end of the plan year. Operationally, it has taken a few weeks for the platform recordkeeper, advisor and plan sponsor to get enrollment meetings done and everything in place to start deferrals which will occur with the first payroll in November. Is Safe Harbor Status negated if the first deferrals do not occur with the first payroll in October? The regulation language seems to be very broad and does not specify that the first deferral must occur with the first payroll in October. Although a very conservative interpretation could be taken to mean just that.