"My question has to do with how the partial termination rules apply following a plan merger. Buyer is acquiring seller. Some of seller's employees will be let go -- some in 2021 and likely more in 2022. Seller's 401(k) will be maintained for the balance of 2021 and then merged into buyer's effective 1/1/2022. So some of the terminations will happen while seller's plan is free-standing and others will happen after the plans are merged. [1] Assuming there would otherwise be a need to assess whether there has been a partial termination by aggregating terminations across the 2 plan years, does the plan merger help prevent a partial termination in a some way? [2] Is there an argument that the seller's plan goes away when it is merged so you don't have to consider the 2022 terminations at all? [3] Or, if not, does the plan merger at least make the 20% threshold harder to hit because the denominator grows when the plans are merged?"

[Sponsored]

Learn how to fix plan failures under EPCRS’ Self Correction and Voluntary Compliance Programs with industry renown John Griffin, J.D., LL.M. Register Now!

"Final 5500-EZ form was filed some time ago. I may be moving to a new place, which is different from the address used on the final 5500-EZ form submitted. Is it necessary to inform IRS of the address change?"

"The SECURE Act changed RMDs for nonspouse beneficiaries to the 10 year rule, unless you're an eligible designated beneficiary (EDB). Other than a spouse, that's someone who is a minor child, disabled, chronically ill, or an individual not more than 10 years younger than the participant.

We interpreted the last one to be someone younger, but not by more than 10 years. A client interprets that to also include any nonspouse beneficary who is older than the participant because they are 'not more than 10 years younger.' That would mean the 10 year rule only applies to a nonspouse more than 10 years younger than the participant (not including minor children). How have others interpreted this?"

"If a company misses a few matching contributions for one participant (who is NHCE), back in 2019 and it's now more than 12 months after the end of the plan year, what would be the correction method? The participant was able to contribute deferrals for those periods, but just wasn't matched. Would you simply fund the matching contribution to the participant? If so, would you adjust for any potential gains during the period?"

"Anyone else seeing the recent letter from the IRS that the 2019 extension request was approved? Hearing from many of our clients and we actually received a letter today for our own plan! Anybody know what gives?"

"Does anyone know if a 401(k) participant that accumulated shares of company stock prior to the company going public can use NUA? The company is now public. However the shares were accumulated while the company was private. Participant has since retired and would now like to use NUA."

"Plan terminated a bunch of years ago, and accounts were paid out in drips and drabs. The only accounts left are for the owners and several people who left the company long ago (like 2010, 2011-ish). The employer doesn't have SSN for these people, so rollover places wont take the accounts. Pooled PSP, not at a nat'l provider or anything like that. What becomes of those accounts?"

"I have a prospect who is interested in a triple stack match. Owner, spouse, and adult child with two additional employees where neither wants to participate--which is insane in this scenario, but I digress. Company is a S Corporation so the owner and family members keep their W-2 wages well below the 401(a)(17) limit--they are around $125k each. I think I have this correct but I really hope someone is more comfortable with this than I am. I believe they can each get a match equal to 16% of their $125k W-2:

Stack 1--enhanced safe harbor match 100% up to 6%

Stack 2--discretionary match 100% up to 4% (I know this can be structed differently but no need in this scenario)

Stack 3--fixed match 100% up to 6%

Everything I've read on other posts and in literature only refers to the standard safe harbor match formula and assumes the owners have the maximum 401(a)(17) comp. I hope those of you with more experience with the triple stack match can help me out here."

"For an Individual Retirement Account not held under an ERISA-governed plan: Does any IRA custodian require a spouse's consent as a condition to the custodian's willingness to follow a designation that names a beneficiary other than the IRA holder's spouse? Does any IRA custodian have in its form a spot for recording a spouse's consent to a beneficiary other than the IRA holder's spouse? (Even if no public law requires this.)

For either question, if you know any, please name names. What I'm looking for is whether an IRA custodian does something, before there is a dispute or claim, to protect the community-property rights of an IRA holder's spouse (or make it convenient for an IRA holder to show her spouse's consent to a potential transfer)."