"This is possibly a stupid question but need to check. Company A and Company B are CG. Setting up a plan for Company A (sponsor) where Company B is an adopting employer. Plan excludes leased employees. Owner contacts and says, a Company A leases employees to Company B, the leased employees should not be excluded. I read the section for leased employees under basic plan document and my understanding is that Company A is not a 'leasing organization'. I do not think it applies here as it is a different definition like a temp agency or something like that. Besides as both entities are CG and no employees are excluded, who cares. Am I missing something here? Thanks"

[Sponsored]

Our Retirement Plan Compliance Services experts collaborate seamlessly with your team: Streamline plan document restatements ... Reduce administrative burdens ... Safeguard client relationships with audit-ready compliance. Let’s make Cycle 2 a smooth process for you and your clients. 

"I just cannot imagine that there will be any delays in mandatory Roth catch-ups, right? I mean ADP, PayChec, Paylocity, PayCor, Paycom collectively must have spent hundreds of millions. Recordkeepers made substantial investments. I just cannot imagine it would not cost tens of millions more to delay. And then there is part about S20 being revenue neutral, paid for in large part by these mandatory Roth catch-ups. But here is an article from Willis Towers Watson saying it is possible.... I could see them saying 'any good faith effort will be treated as not a failure even if something slips through the cracks.' But not put it on hold altogether."

"Looking at a possible takeover plan which I think there may be an issue with deduction.... Not sure if a CG or ASG or if any at all but for arguments sake let's say either CG or ASG (still waiting on info). Looking at 2023. this is a DB plan. Prior TPA valuation report shows 300k as salary for pension purposes. Deduction was 200k. Company A (a partnership) sponsors the plan. The majority partner's SE income in box 14A shows 300k. There is also 500k under box 14C -- non-farm income (which cannot be used for pension, if I recall correctly). Assume the other partner is silent and has no box 14A income.

"If this was the only company sponsoring the plan with ASG/CG, even the though the deduction is within 300k se income limits under box 14A, the salary is definitely not as they would need 14A to be over 500k+ (excluding the 1/2 se tax adjustment), as per prior TPA report. Now, Company B (a sole proprietorship), which is part of CG/ASG as assumed above and owned by the majority partner 100%. Line 31 of the schedule c shows 300k (but not adopted the plan).

"If I recall correctly, for 415 limit purposes, you add both entities ... However, for pension/deduction purposes, one cannot add both incomes for valuation purposes, only Company A can be used ... Let's assume that it was intended that both companies to adopt the plan, say, going back to 2019, inception year ... Can this be corrected without VFCP i.e. is there a self-correction on this or must file with the IRS for correction? Any other comments/suggestions?"

"Per the audit report, there is an amount reported as a transfer out and within the footnote, it is indicating that assets were refunded to the company for the provision of benefits for or on the behalf of participants for claims incurred. On the Schedule H, is this reported under 2e(3) as an 'other' benefit payment and payments to provide benefits or under 2l(2) as a transfer out or within another field? Initially, I thought it would be a transfer out, but the assets went back to the company and not to another plan, so I wasn't sure the plan information to report under 5b which is required if reported it as a transfer out."

"Curious as to whether anyone with a 'pipeline' or 'contact' at the IRS has heard any rumors as to whether this foolish rule will be changed? It just isn't reasonable for someone who is a former LTPT and now a 'regular' employee to receive a year of vesting credit for working 600 hours, whereas someone who started as a 'regular' employee must work 1,000 hours to receive a year of vesting credit. Not to mention, of course, the administrative nightmare and client confusion."