I have a publicly traded U.K. company with 5,000 employees in 17 countries with a U.S. subsidiary that is trying to join an open MEP. I have read in another post that "Legally a foreign employer can maintain a qualified plan for a U.S. employee if the plan complies with U.S. laws." I assume that because this is a publicly traded company on the London stock market, if there is another U.S. subsidiary then we don't have to worry about controlled group issues and can just have the U.S. subsidiary become an adopting employer of the open MEP. Because this is a MEP, we will have already met the requirement that the trust is sited in the U.S.

[Advert.]

ftwProposal Pro helps you illustrate the best plan options. Intuitive and easy to use - the compare features, customization options, ability to run complex calculations and create 3-5 separate proposals simultaneously saves you time! Learn more!

For a plan that chooses to pay in the Safe Harbor 3% Non-Elective contribution on a payroll basis, are they required to "calculate" the contribution based on annual compensation and thus need to do a "true-up" each year? I seem to be finding evidence that for the Safe Harbor Matching contribution you can choose to calculate and deposit it based on a payroll basis (as long as it's chosen/defined in the plan document). I've read Treas. Reg. 1.401(k)-3(c)(5)(ii). I'd like to confirm that, for the Safe Harbor 3% Non-Elective Contribution, the IRS currently does not allow an employer to calculate it on a per payroll basis.

I know I can add a discretionary match to a safe harbor plan mid-year. But can I add a stated match? We have a client that wants to make a big match on top of the 3% SH. More than the discretionary match constraints would allow.

I have a plan that deposits their 3% SHNE per payroll. Due to prior year calculation errors and numerous turnover at the plan sponsor they have asked me to check their deposits quarterly for accuracy. While reviewing the 2nd quarter deposits there was a participant who entered the plan on 4/1/2019. I did the SHNE calc based on the comp provided from 4/1 -- 6/30. When I advised the client that there was a true-up due I was told that the calc was incorrect because the comp that was provided to me included pay that was earned from 3/17 -- 3/30, but paid on 4/5/2019 and should not be included because it was earned before they were eligible on 4/1 even though it was paid on the 4/5 paycheck after the participant was eligible. I've never ran into this before because we have always asked plan sponsor to provide us comp from date of participation since we are a balance forward TPA and not daily val. The client contact wants something in writing from the document that tells her specifically what compensation to use. If I read the document under Adjustments to compensation, it says that "compensation paid while not a participant in the component of the plan for which compensation is being used will be excluded". This reads to me that it should be calculated on compensation "paid" after the participants entry date and not "earned". Coming from a daily val TPA firm previously we did everything based on paycheck date so now I'm questioning what the right answer is. Has anyone else ran into this and can provide any advice or site from the Regs to help me appease the client?

For the 2018 Form 5500-EZ:

QUESTION RE LINE 6a2 11/30/18: Solo 401k participant loan taken; $50k; no loan repayments made in 2018. 12/31/18: Solo 401k total plan assets in brokerage account $340k (390 -- 50 = 340). Which amount should be reported on line 6a2 -- $340k or $390k?

QUESTION RE LINE 7a 2/1/19: Employer contribution for 2018; $3k. Even though the contribution occurred in 2019 (and was for the 2018 year), $3k is reported on line 7a, correct?

QUESTION RE LINE 9 The plan had a participant loan during 2018. What amount goes on line 9... outstanding loan principal as of year end... outstanding loan principal plus interest as of year end... some other amount?

Have a situation where a missed deferral opportunity was corrected in such a way that very closely resembles the EPCRS pre-approved correction. They calculated the "missed match" in such a way that some participants will end up wth slightly more than a 4% safe harbor match. The specifics are not relevant to my question so I'll forego a detailed explanation. The question is EPCRS Section 6.02 (Correction Principals) says "(a) The correction method should, to the extent possible, resemble one already provided for in the Code, regulations, or other guidance of general applicability." The correction method they used is resemble, and does resemble very closely what EPCRS says (including notice requireements, making up for missed match etc). It is just that the method of calculating the missed match provides them with a little bit extra than the EPCRS methodologies would have. Is this still a suitable correction under EPCRS SCP? Or is their essentially a "Do it this way or it's or you don't get any reliance"? We are capping anyone over $275K (in 2018) at the maximum match based on the normal formula. So this new approach will not allow anyone to get more than the match based on max comp. For whatever that is worth.

It's July and I would like to file a final 5500-EZ for 2019. Do we still just cross out the 18 on the form and put 2019 or is there a preferred method these days?