All Activity

Thank you for clarifying

RBD is still 4-1-26 even if lump sum coming later in 2026.

Following up on this Same owner, turned 73 in 2025, terminated 12/31/2025 and will take distribution in 2026, when is the RMD due?

Those eligible participants who didn't defer, and didn't therefore receive the match, would be entitled to the Top Heavy Minimum. So have to ensure they get the PS allocation that meets the minimum.

I assume this is a DC plan? If so then 1.401(a)(9)-5 applies. So the default rule is that you use the entire balance, vested or not. However if the RMD exceeds the vested balance, then you only distribute the vested amount. If we're talking about someone who terminated during 2025, then also be sure to check the plan document's rules about when forfeitures occur. If they are deemed to have a forfeiture immediately upon termination (say because their vested account balance is less than $7,000) then their account balance as of 12/31/2025 (for the 2026 DCY) would only be the vested amount. For 12/31/2024 (used for the 2025 DCY, due by 4/1/2026) there couldn't have been a forfeiture by then so I think there's no question that the full account balance is used.

I did too

26 C.F.R. § 1.411(a)-8 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/section-1.411(a)-8 26 C.F.R. § 1.411(a)-8T https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/section-1.411(a)-8T

I actually liked Lotus back in the day 🤣.

Isn't the top-heavy minimum covered by the safe harbor contribution?

I believe you can amended a plan to say anyone who worked at least one hours on or after 1/1/2025 will be on this vesting schedule (describe the new 5 year schedule). I know I have seen those types of amendments back when you were made to shorten you schedule back in the mid 2007s. Your criteria is non-discriminatory and treats anyone who have the same set of facts the same. Anyone who termed before 2025 isn't have their vesting schedule changed so you don't have to offer then anything.

If the kids are not deferring the maximum - perhaps their tax advisor could educate them on IRAs. If they are eligible to make IRA contributions, might be better than messing up the 401(k) testing with deferrals. They could still be eligible for the plan, and help testing, but a way for them to still get tax savings, but not skew testing.

CuseFan has the best suggestion. Restructuring is sometimes also known as component testing. both testing groups would have to meet minimum gateway. Generally the youngest HCE + older NHCE are put in a group and tested on a contribution allocation basis, the older HCE and the younger NHCE are tested on future basis. For next year - I would not suggest adding in allocation conditions - if you do , it handcuffs who can receive an discretionary employer contribution. Your plan document might waive allocation conditions for purposes of meeting gateway, but what if a younger NHCE left partway way through the year, and it would be advantageous to testing to give that person a larger contribution? you would not be able to if the plan has a last day employment condition. That person would be limited to the Safe harbor, and perhaps gateway. I do suggest that safe harbor nonelective go to NHCE ONLY in plans that are cross-tested. If it works out to give the HCE 3% and not skew testing, that can always be accomplished with a discretionary contribution. Alternatively - for some future year - if the plan is small, owner comp is high, and general participation is low - sometimes it works out better for the plan to use safe harbor match. The owners defer the maximum, if their comp is high they can receive a large match, and then make up the difference in discretionary employer. Depending on the specifics, it might get the owners to the maximum overall limit with less minimum to the NHCE to pass testing. May not work as well if the plan is top heavy. But something to consider sometimes.

I thought this seemed pretty simple but now I am getting confused .. 401k plan currently has 6-year vesting schedule. They would like to amend the schedule to a 5-year schedule, which will be more advantageous at every year. They are doing this because they feel like their current schedule is not competitive in their industry. However, they do not want to give the new vesting schedule to anyone who is terminated but still has money in the plan. Can the amendment state that only participants who work an hour of service on or after the effective date of the amendment will be subject to the better vesting schedule? And they want the new schedule to apply to all of the money in the accounts of anyone who is still employed on the date of the amendment (ie., they don't want to only apply the vesting schedule to new contributions made after that date). I guess where I am getting confused is, Is there a requirement that anyone with at least 3 years service (including terminated participants) must be allowed to elect the better schedule? Thanks!!

I don't trust these new-fangled computing devices.

The Top Heavy Minimum is not determined by Nonelective Contributions alone. As Bill Presson notes, even employee deferrals from an HCE will trigger a Top Heavy Minimum.

At least get into the '80s and get on Lotus 123 man!

I do all my stuff on green sheets still.

Have you looked at Sepirak.com. Its a software designed for the self directed industry but has the components to recordkeep 401(k) plans.

Plus, i didn't the match could increase in later years. (In the same spirit as 'Cuse's question, I guess)

for 401kinabox (Remote / Frederick MD)View the full text of this job opportunity

Yes a key employee did make salary deferrals as well as safe-harbor match

Did any key employees do salary deferrals? That will trigger top heavy minimums.

You can use the PBGC program for missing participants in DC plans. Plan does not have to be "covered by the PBGC." Link for more info: https://www.pbgc.gov/sites/default/files/form-mp200-instructions.pdf

Would a top-heavy Safe-Harbor plan have to make a top-heavy minimum contribution if they only made profit-sharing contributions to non-key participants? My thoughts are no because the highest profit-sharing contribution received by a Key employee would be 0%.

Brian, thanks for the practical information. I do believe they don't want a trust situation as well. And part of the problem is their using the terminology more generically, not in the more legal sense that's leading to some confusion. Hope to get a more details on the situation shortly, but this helps clear up my thinking.