Suppose you have a 401(k) plan with a safe harbor match. The plan had a 6/30/18 plan year end. An HCE made salary deferrals of $18,000 from 7/1/17 through 6/30/18 ($18,500 for 2018). However he mistakenly funded an additional $500 on the next pay period on 7/15/2018 (now $19,000 for 2018). To correct this, the plan refunded the $500 plus earnings to him shortly after the extra $500 was funded. That extra $500 was technically funded during the 7/1/2018 - 6/30/2019 year. He funded no salary deferrals for the year ended 6/30/2019 (other than the mistaken $500). Should he get the match on that $500 even though it was refunded to him?

[Advert.]

Employment agreements vary from simple offer letters to complex executive agreements incorporating multiple plans and attachments. This presentation reviews the purpose of each component, and offers best practices and tax-traps for the unwary.

For a cross tested plan, I know the total contribution cannot exceed 25% of total eligible comp. But what about on an individual level? Can I give one HCE, say, 40% profit sharing it if passes all the tests (gateway, average benefit, and rate group using midpoint)?

Large nonprofit health systems are being approached frequently by consultants offering a proposal to rescind executives' 409A/457(f) SERPs in direct exchange for a split dollar loan arrangement of substantially equal value (but generally a very different "payment" time/form than under the 409A/457(f) SERP). The push for these proposals seems to be to help nonprofit employers avoid or reduce 4960 excise taxes where these SERP values would exceed $1M at vesting. Anybody seeing these along with the legal opinions from the promoters that these "swaps" "should not" run afoul of 409A or 457(f)? Thoughts on whether this violates anti-substitution/anti-exchange rules under 409A/457(f)? If not, why not? If an executive and employer bilaterally agreed to cancel SERP in exchange for loan regime split dollar arrangement, should the executive insist on indemnification from the employer for potential 409A/457(f) infractions/penalties if the promoter's "should be OK" doesn't ultimately align with IRS views on audit or at Tax Court? I appreciate any insight as to how these proposals are being greeted by counsel for employers.

One person plan for a doctor. For the first five years of the plan, the doctor is not vested in the profit sharing contribution. The plan is meant to be last more than 5 years, so how to explain to the plan owner that the money is his even if he is not vested during the first five years?

Can someone provide me some pro's and con's on each type of contribution -- an After Tax Contribution to 401k plan, vs. a Mega Back Door Roth Contribution?