Firm acquires another practice location and recognizes prior service for purposes of plan eligibility and employer match allocations. (The Plan has 1000 hour/last day rule for match.) Plan uses acquistion date for other purposes in the Plan (i.e. vesting). The hire date in the client's census records is the acquistion date. Plan entry dates have been overridden for these folks so that the vesting will track properly. For purposes of the ADP/ACP testing the system is putting these participants in the otherwise excludable group due to the overridden hire dates. I'm not sure they should be in the otherwise excludable group. Should I override that as well and have them in with the nonexcludables? Thoughts? Thank you in advance.

[Advert.]

Are you an experienced attorney who can handle issues involving private or government retirement plans? Join our no-fee National Pension Lawyers Network! There is no obligation to take any case we refer to you. Join our network!

Lots of interest in plans under the new Association Health Plan guidance, but some groups do not meet same line of business requirement under VEBA regulations. Any thoughts or ideas on any way to receive favorable tax treatment and avoid K-1 when do not meet VEBA requirements?

Eligible charitable organization signed (without reading or counsel) a "good faith" 403b plan document in 2009 as mandated by IRS. 2009 document erroneously provided immediate eligibility for the ER match despite the plan having been operated since 1992 using a permissible 1 year eligibility requirement. ER discovered the error when they recently received the vendor's preapproved 403b document which is to be retroactively effective to 2010. Since the 2009 document was only to be an interim "best efforts" stopgap measure, can they simply correct the error retroactively in the new preapproved document or do they have an operational error that has to go through VCP?

OK, I am having one of those moments where I think I am going crazy. I didn't know where to post this, so I selected this board. Section 1 taxes "taxable income." Section 63 defines "taxable income" by reference to gross income in Section 61 minus deductions. I know the deductions for AGI are not taxable, but I can't find that connection in the IRC. Where does the definition of AGI in Section 62 fit into all this? I know it is an above-the-line deduction, and I know this is very simple on the 1040, but where is the missing-link code section?

Working through this - getting there, but still some basic questions. For purposes of Cafeteria plan Contributions and Benefits (C&B) testing, let's say you have a plan that includes several types of benefits, one of them being health insurance. While the plan was amended to allow for owners to elect pre-tax salary deductions for health insurance, NONE of them have elected to do so. So it appears that there are three potential tests. First, the "safe harbor for health plans" test under 1.125-7. It appears that this automatically passes, as no HC is paying premiums through the plan. Correct? And the fact that there are other benefits (FSA, dental, vision, whatever) doesn't affect this? Second - the "availability standard" test. Since the plan has no "employer contributions" and all benefits are available on a nondiscriminatory basis, this passes. Question - does this often fail? Seems like most plan designs would typically pass with no trouble, but I have little experience in this, so I'm curious. Third - the "utilization standard" - this is just mathematical testing, and will require salary data, etc... Thanks in advance, and any observations are most welcome! P.S. When there are HSA "catch-up" contributions, are these included in the testing? In the qualified plan arena, catch-up deferrals are excluded for 415, etc., but I don't know that there is any such dispensation in the 125 world?

I have an owner who turned 70 1/2 in 2018 and also got a divorce in 2018. The QDRO was not received in our office until 2019. The QDRO has the division date for the accounts on 3/31/2018. The alternate payee will be receiving 100% of the participants account balance. The participant took his RMD for 2018 by December 31, 2018. Does he need to take a 2019 RMD or his account balance zero on 12/31/2018 because the alternate payee is receiving 100% of his account balance? The Alternate payee is not 70 1/2. My thinking is that his account balance is zero and therefore he does not need to take and RMD in 2019.

one of the terminating plan has a MPP and a profits sharing plan. They want to terminate the MPP plan and participants have been given an option to move the balance into the profit sharing plan, however this option is only for Active participants and not Terminated participants, can terminated participants also rollover the balance into the profit sharing plan? will it become a successor plan? will they be able to terminate the MPP plan?