A pension plan subject to IRC 412 provided a timely 204(h) notice in January 2018 stating the plan will be frozen (no more benefit accruals), effective March 31, 2018. The amendment was provided to the employer at the same time with a March 31, 2018 effective date. We just received the signed amendment back. It was not executed until May 10, 2018. How is this amendment treated? As freezing the plan on its date of execution, May 10, 2018? Or is the amendment treated as not in effect? What additional action should be taken?

We make the complex world of retirement, benefits, human capital and M&A simpler for organizations across the nation. Learn how!
FINDLEY is: F lexible, I nnovative, N imble, D ynamic, L oyal, E xperienced and integrit Y

The sponsor has a plan year with fiscal year end of 6/30. Let's say that this is the scenario: 1/1/2016 to 6/30/2016 -- The owner deferred $9,000. 7/1/2016 -- 12/31/2016 -- The owner deferred $15,000. 1/1/2017 -- 6/30/2017 -- The owner deferred $12,000. The plan started on 1/1/2016 and there were no deferrals before that. Let's say the owner is catch up eligible and we're running the test for plan year 7/1/2016 to 6/30/2017. The plan failed ADP test for the plan year ending 6/30/2016 and $1,500 had to be re-characterized as catch up. For plan year ending 6/30/2017, the plan failed the ADP test again. The question is, what is the catch up limit for this plan year that can be used to re-characterize the deferrals for the owner? The owner deferred $15,000 + $12,000 = $27,000 for plan year ending 6/30/2017, but how would that show up in the failed ADP test?

Company X sponsors a calendar year-end safe harbor 401k. As of July 31, Company Z is buying Company X. More specifically, Z is buying the assets of X; it is an asset sale. X's employees will then go to work for Z. If X terminates its 401k as of July 31, does it still get safe harbor protection for the final, short plan year? Normally, if safe harbor is discontinued during the year, then no safe harbor protection is given for that year. But if a company is purchased, then an exception is granted. Does this exception extend to an asset sale?

Let's say a plan does not allow for in-service. Also, the plan document states that there is an exception for non-owners who are still employed (that they don't have to take an RMD until separated from service). I have two questions:[1] Can a non-owner who is over 70-1/2 still elect to take an RMD even though he's not terminated? In other words, does that provision give the choice of taking an RMD or waiting until terminated, OR is it a requirement that he or she wait until terminated? [2] If the answer to Question 1 is "yes", can the participant stop the RMDs at any time after starting them, or is the participant stuck with continuing them?