EIN does NOT change. Plan name changes, and name of plan sponsor changes, but no change in EIN, nor is there any change to the Trust ID number. This doesn't call for filing an 8822-B, because neither the address nor the "responsible party" is changing. No SS-4, because Trust ID number doesn't change. The name change will be reflected on the 5500 when filed. Am I missing anything here? Client's attorney is telling client IRS needs to be notified of this. If so, how? Maybe when they file their tax return?

When a plan is top heavy, it's sometimes useful to amend the plan to set a $0 limit on elective deferrals for Key employees. This allows the Key employees to make contributions that will be reclassified automatically as catch-up contributions (provided they are eligible to make catch-up contributions) because they exceeded the plan-imposed limit of $0. Because catch-up contributions are disregarded for application of 416, this is a way to allow the Keys to contribute without triggering the top heavy minimum. I am wondering if there is a way to specify that the $0 limit automatically applies in years when the plan is top heavy, and only when the plan is top heavy.

In our adoption agreement (ftwilliam) there is a checkbox in the "Minimum and Maximum Deferral Amounts" section for "Other limitations on Elective Deferrals (specify): ________". I'm thinking of putting in that blank something along the lines of, "If the Plan is Top Heavy for the Plan Year, the maximum Elective Deferral contribution for Key Employees shall be $0 for the Plan Year." Possibly also adding "The application of this limit shall not restrict the Key Employee's right to make Catch-up Contributions, if they would otherwise be eligible to make Catch-up Contributions" just to be clear. Any thoughts or opinions on this approach? Are there any issues with determining the plan limit based on the top heavy status?

In theory, the plan administrator could know by the first day of the plan year whether or not the plan is top heavy for the current year, and so can adjust the keys' limits if needed. Would this kind of language jeopardize the plan's preapproved status?

Participant leaves the company and requests distribution of plan balance. Broker processes a payout without consulting TPA. With plan sponsor consent the participant is paid out 100%. Problem is the participant wasn't 100% vested. Any experience getting funds returned so proper amount can be withheld?