Jump to content

Is this exclusion of NHCEs for ADP test legitimate?


Guest 410b
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest 410b

My company uses a 3rd party 401k tester.

I was studying and trying to understand the NDT test section of the results. When I inquired about the second test group which appeared to be a small group of NHCEs separated from the main employee test data I had submitted, I was told the testing procedure:

Eliminates/disaggregates NHCEs with less than one year of service as of the last semi-annual entry date of the plan.

Eliminates/disaggregates NHCEs under age 21 as of the last semi-annual entry date of the plan.

and that the tester's reporting department was confident the test had been done correctly.

The plan allows entry at age 18 but has a service requirement of 12 months which must include 1,000 hours of service. Plan entry dates are monthly, enrollments are quarterly.

Hiring and attendance policies of the company are such that it is impossible for a new employee to meet the 12 months of employment condition without also meeting the 1,000 hours of service condition.

I have stated to my plan administrator that I don't believe the testing is being done properly.

Since the plan does not allow participation until an employee has met the 12 months of employment condition, it is my contention that there are no employees with less than 12 months of service and eliminating/disaggregating such employees is a specious procedure which could cause the plan to be disqualified. I believe the testing should be redone without eliminating any plan participants due to the "service exception" mentioned in the testers manual.

I have also suggested that eliminating employees under 21 at a mid-year date is an aggressive approach. A more conservative approach would be to eliminate only the employees under 21 as of the last monthly entry date of the plan year.

I like "conservative" in relation to eliminating appearance of conflicts of interest or manipulation of tests.

Are my comments correct or incorrect?

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

IMNTBHO I agree with you that your approach would be the more conservative one. I also agree with them that their approach is reasonable. This is a judgment call.

As the customer, you certainly have the right to request that they do it your way. And you should also expect to pay more if you take them out of their normal system.....and it might be a lot more. It might be a lot more if they have to do your Plan manually because their software is set up the other way.

FWIW I think you may want to trust their judgment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would use the enrollment/entry dates available under the plan. In the case above, I would include anyone age 21 or older with a year of service as of the last enrollment date (10/15?). If the plan has a year of service requirement, I would agree that it is unlikely that there should be any carve-outs.

From the IRS website - see page 6, last sentence in first paragraph on right column:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p6393.pdf

PAL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is a gray area depending on exactly which IRS official you might be talking to.

certainly the regs provide that you can test 'otherwise excludables' separately.

now, exactly how that works and who that includes has been an open debate the last few years.

1. does the document have to specify the use of 'otherwise excludables'. there seems to be some leanings in recent years that despite the fact this is a testing 'assumption', it might be best if it is described in the document.

2. do plan entry dates make a difference?

some IRS officials voice an opinion yes, other say no. The code / regs simply say refer to max age/servcie. (age 21/1 yr of service) and then the code says one must enter the first day of plan year or 6 months after meeting the requirements.

this ends up with 3 schools of thought.

you indicated the plan had monthly entry dates.

so, for a calander year plan, employee A is age 23 and hired 2/3/06. works 1000 hrs so 1 yr ends on 2/3/07.

one school of thought says monthly entry dates apply, so if ee is still working on 3/1/07 he is in the big test.

another school of thought says 'use 1/1 and 7/1 entry dates as max exclusion'. thus is ee is still working on 7/1/07 he is includable in the big test.

the final school of thought says you could have written the document to say use the absolute max entry date possible. (e.g.1st day of plan year or 6 months after meeting age 21/1 yr of service) thus this ee would be in the big test if still working on 8/3/07.

(Personally, until IRS says one way or another my leanings are in the last camp since I could have written my document that way - thus the people who are in the plan would have been excluded if I had written the document that way - hence the term 'otherwise excludable'.

since there is no requirement to use the 'otherwise excludable' assumption, there is certainly nothing wrong with including everyone, even if it makes a plan fail testing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 410b

Jim Chad,

Thanks for your response.

My problem is that as the taxpayer, my company and its plan administrator are responsible to the IRS. If they accept the tester’s judgment without understanding it, and that judgment is wrong, then there are accountability issues.

How is it is reasonable to apply this “if condition”:

If the plan's eligibility provisions are more liberal than what is required by the statute, disaggregation may be a permissible option.

to a situation in which the plan’s service eligibility requirement is NOT more liberal than required by the statute?

410(b)(4)(B):

(B) Requirements may be met separately with respect to excluded group

If employees not meeting the minimum age or service requirements of

subsection (a)(1) (without regard to subparagraph (B) thereof) are

covered under a plan of the employer which meets the requirements of

paragraph (1) separately with respect to such employees, such employees

may be excluded from consideration in determining whether any plan of

the employer meets the requirements of paragraph (1).

410(a)(1)(A):

(1) Minimum age and

service conditions

(A) ) General rule

A trust shall not constitute a qualified trust under section 401 (a) if the

plan of which it is a part requires, as a condition of participation in the

plan, that an employee complete a period of service with the employer or

employers maintaining the plan extending beyond the later of the

following dates—

(i) the date on which the employee attains the age of 21; or

(ii) the date on which he completes 1 year of service.

The company’s 401(k) plan specifies age 18 and 1 year of service as participation requirements.

Employees of the company that do not meet the minimum service requirement of 410(a)(1)(A)(ii) are not covered under any plan offered by the company.

How is it then reasonable (or legal) to take a database of plan participants (all those who are eligible to defer regardless of whether they are or are not doing so) and disaggregate some who purportedly have less than a year of service when they had to have a year of service to be in the list in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 410b

PAL,

Thanks for your response. I need to print and read that document.

The sentence you pointed me to leads to another question regarding dates.

It seems like I have learned something more about 401(k) testing each year I have pulled data for the testing company.

Fiscal year plan, FYE April. Employer does enrollment and change paperwork quarterly, first of month. May 1, etc.

Because of this, the data that I prepared for the testing company originally worked off those quarterly enrollment dates. As I began to understand more about what was going on, I spent a long time one year studying plan documents and discovered that our plan said that we have a monthly entry date, so I am now preparing the test database for the testing company that way.

I think you are suggesting combining those dates in a way I had not considered before.

My company’s plan, people qualifying in Feb. enter in Mar. Qualifiers in Mar. enter in Apr. Qualifiers in Apr. do not enter until May, and I have excluded them from the test database. February and March qualifiers are not allowed to complete enrollment paperwork and actually make deferrals until May 1.

I am interpreting your comments to mean that I do need to continue including the Feb. and Mar. qualifiers (Mar. and Apr. plan entry) in the testing database. However, for the ADP/ACP test, I think you are telling me that they can be excluded/disaggregated and put in the separate test group along with the under 21 employees since they are not allowed to actually make deferrals until May 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW - I think that the "otherwise excludable" in this instance is the age 21, not the year of service. (Your plan eligibility is age 18, right?)

I agree with those who say this is a more aggressive approach, but not necessarily incorrect or not allowed.

my 2 cents :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have never had any problems disaggregating participants who were under 21 or would have entered the plan the next plan year if the plan used semi-annual entry dates.

Would the test have passed if everyone was included? Some practitioners just automatically disaggregate the populations as a default. If the plan will pass with everyone in it, then all is good.

For the excludable people: is the census data correct for those people? Be sure they are really excludable.

Also, for "service less than a year": You could actually have people with a year of service who could be excludable. Say a person is hired in August 2006. One year anniversary is August 2007. With monthly entry dates, the person would come into the plan on Sep 1. With semi-annual entry dates, the person would come into the plan 1/1/08. So even though the person is eligible for the plan and has more than a year of service, he or she can be tested separately.

QKA, QPA, CPC, ERPA

Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 410b

Tom Poje,

Thanks for your response.

In regard to the otherwise excludable, I would be interested in your opinion on the "carving out issue" too. I tried to express my thought struggle on that more clearly in my response to Jim Chad.

Your comments are helpful.

I have been focused on the idea of “getting someone to see the test is wrong”, which I believe to be the case with the service part of the exclusion. However a plan amendment could address the date issue for the age part of things. I think I need to be mentioning that as part of the solution too.

Again, setting aside the question of whether the service exclusion was correct and considering only the “date to use” question, I was asked if what our testing company is doing was “industry standard” practice. I think your response tells me that instead of 1 “standard” there is a range of accepted practice and that each practice has some logic to support it that can be traced back to a code section.

Your post is very helpful to me in understanding those different date choices.

The test failure that you mention is one of the reasons for my concern over this issue.

HCE % participation has been increasing. NHCE participation remains low. The ADP test failed 3 years in a row (appropriate corrective action was taken). The ADP test passes this year, only because of what I consider to be an incorrect procedure. A situation easily correctible now, much more embarrassing later, if it is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 410b

pmacduff,

“… more aggressive approach, … not necessarily incorrect …”

Comment noted. Thanks.

BG5150

What are the service entry requirements for your plan, 1year or less than 1 year?

All employees would have failed ADP test for 4th year in a row.

Employee census data was created based on 18 and 1 year of service. Testing company exchanged emails with me on questions, fixed clerical errors, and then made exclusions from that database based on their criteria.

In regard to your last paragraph, from my post to Jim Chad above:

How is it is reasonable to apply this “if condition”:

If the plan's eligibility provisions are more liberal than what is required by the statute, disaggregation may be a permissible option.

to a situation in which the plan’s service eligibility requirement is NOT more liberal than required by the statute?

I cannot come up with a logical way to support the concept of reaching into a container and taking out something that was never put in in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 410b

Tom Poje,

Reading again, seeing more that I missed.

Re "final thought" is that the date 6 months after (08/03/07) or the plan entry date after that 6 months period you mentioned (09/01/07).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a confusion here. Maybe more than one. Maybe more than two.

1) The testing company has indicated that the actual entry dates are semi-annual (that would be 5/1 and 11/1).

Eliminates/disaggregates NHCEs with less than one year of service as of the last semi-annual entry date of the plan.

Eliminates/disaggregates NHCEs under age 21 as of the last semi-annual entry date of the plan.

But you have also indicated that "Plan entry dates are monthly."

Both can't be correct. Which is?

I'm going to assume that the entry dates for the plan are indeed monthly and that the testing company has used the semi-annual entry dates solely for purposes of determining whether a participant can be carved out.

As others have pointed out, you can not find agreement, even at the IRS, as to whether the superimposition of semi-annual entry dates solely for the purpose of determining whether an individual can be carved out is acceptable. Depending on what industry conference you might have attended in the past three years, you will find an IRS representative, possibly on tape, indicating one way and you will find another IRS representative, also possibly on tape, at another conference indicating the opposite. There are no citations I'm aware of which provide a more formal IRS view on the choice and the IRS view on both choices.

By the way, this issue has been around for years and years and the IRS has flipped and flopped on it for years and years. It is hard for me to imagine that the IRS, if push came to shove, would hold fast to either approach as being the only legitimate alternative. But as also pointed out, you, as the client, can ask that the test be done in the most conservative manner, if you wish, and the testing company should be able to do so, even if it is at additional cost.

2) Assuming that the testing company's description is solely for carve out purposes and that monthly entry dates are required by your plan's document, I also note that you have stated that the employer processes enrollment forms quarterly. If I understand you correctly, this is a qualification failure. That is, if an employee hired in February of 2007 would be eligible to enter the plan on 3/1/2008 and that employee is not given an opportunity to commence deferrals until 5/1/2008, then the plan has not operated in accordance with its terms. If this is a correct description of what is going on then the EPCRS (Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System) provides for a correction, which you should embark upon. This may involve corrections for many years and be quite expensive. If the correction is necessary and the plan sponsor finds the default correction prohibitively expensive, you might give consideration to applying to the IRS for an alternative correction under EPCRS. Competent legal counsel should be engaged if you find that correction is necessary, in either event.

3) You have indicated that there are certain participants who are being carved out, but you haven't given us an example birth, hire and work history for anyone carved out in this manner. You hit upon one category, that would be those hired in the last quarter of the year (2/1 through 4/30) who are not actually allowed to defer until the next year (5/1 following the 12 month anniversary of the 2/1 through 4/30 hire date) who definitely should be carved out if the actual entry dates are quarterly (but see the above item if the entry dates are actually monthly). If the entry dates are monthly, then those carved out would be those hired 4/1 through 4/30 of the year before. However, it is possible that those individuals aren't in your database at all.

Note that if the entry dates are indeed monthly and if the employer has been inappropriately excluding those from deferring once they have entered the plan until the next quarterly processing date, you will find that these individuals will be reflected in the final test exactly as if they were properly carved out. This is because the default correction under EPCRS is to have the employer make a corrective contribution to these individuals equal to the average of the NHCE deferral rate (with an adjustment for lost earnings). Hence, the actual NHCE average will be the same as if they were excluded.

So, can you confirm which is the correct definition of entry under the terms of the plan and whether or not the employer has inappropriately been precluding people from deferring between their actual plan entry date and the next quarterly processing date?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 410b

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the response. I am going to answer you in two separate posts, because I am still not getting a good answer to my original basic question.

I am seeing the term "carve out" used in responses to my question, so I will use that here.

This statement showed up in one of my search hits this week:

"If the plan's eligibility provisions are more liberal than what is required by the statute, disaggregation may be a permissible option."

Our testing company's manual includes a statment along those lines. That same concept is referred to in some of the posts above, for example the last paragraph of BG5150's post.

It seems to me that that statement also implies a reverse.

If the plan's eligibility provisions are NOT more liberal than what is required by the statute, disaggregation IS NOT a permissible option.

My plan is NOT more liberal than the statute in regard to service requirements. It equals the plan. Therefore I don't think it is correct to do "carve out' based on a service requirement. I DO have to work on understanding the date issues which you and Tom Poje have raised. However, my first, basic, core question is not which date pattern is the proper one to use for a "carve out". It is whether or not "carve out" is correct at all for our plan. (Conceptually, it seems to me that the testing company is saying that they can take rocks out of a bucket I provide, even though I never put any rocks into it.) Because I can't follow the logic of the test "carve out" procedure, I have put myself in the position of saying to our Plan Administrator, our CPA, and our testing company that I believe it is incorrect to be doing a service based "carve out" at all and that it could cause our plan to be disqualified by allowing higher than proper HCE contributions. I am wanting to know if I have made a correct or incorrect analysis of that issue and what the support is for whichever answer is right.

If my analysis is correct, then I think we should be able to say to the testing company that they have not been performing code compliant tests on our account and that they should do proper tests at no additional charge to us. If I am wrong, I have a very red face and another annual learning experience about 401(k) testing. In either case my company has a better knowledge about the testing properly supporting HCE contribution limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My plan is NOT more liberal than the statute in regard to service requirements. It equals the plan. Therefore I don't think it is correct to do "carve out' based on a service requirement.

Ah, but your service eligibility IS more liberal because of the entry dates. You could have entry 6 months after satifying the 1 year of service requirement. You have monthly (or quarterly) entry dates. Does what everyone is saying make more sense now?

"What's in the big salad?"

"Big lettuce, big carrots, tomatoes like volleyballs."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My plan is NOT more liberal than the statute in regard to service requirements. It equals the plan. Therefore I don't think it is correct to do "carve out' based on a service requirement. I DO have to work on understanding the date issues which you and Tom Poje have raised. However, my first, basic, core question is not which date pattern is the proper one to use for a "carve out". It is whether or not "carve out" is correct at all for our plan. (Conceptually, it seems to me that the testing company is saying that they can take rocks out of a bucket I provide, even though I never put any rocks into it.) Because I can't follow the logic of the test "carve out" procedure, I have put myself in the position of saying to our Plan Administrator, our CPA, and our testing company that I believe it is incorrect to be doing a service based "carve out" at all and that it could cause our plan to be disqualified by allowing higher than proper HCE contributions. I am wanting to know if I have made a correct or incorrect analysis of that issue and what the support is for whichever answer is right.

If my analysis is correct, then I think we should be able to say to the testing company that they have not been performing code compliant tests on our account and that they should do proper tests at no additional charge to us. If I am wrong, I have a very red face and another annual learning experience about 401(k) testing. In either case my company has a better knowledge about the testing properly supporting HCE contribution limits.

For the moment, ignore the entry date issue and focus on a more clearly defined piece of the puzzle. Your plan is more liberal than the statute because it allows people in at age 18, and the statute says you can make them wait until 21. Anyone in your plan who is 18, 19 or 20 can be excluded from the test because you didn't have to include them in the plan and therefore should not be penalized because you were generous and let them in.

Does that help clear up the concept of carving out certain people?

FWIW, testing by excluding "otherwise excludable" employees is an industry standard, albeit with some questions raised above about exactly how to define that group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 410b

Hi Kim,

You are starting to touch on exactly what my point is.

To avoid the date definition issue, I will use THE DATE.

In our 2006 testing package, there were 2 lists of NHCEs to be used in our 2007 tests. The second list -Participants who do not meet Statutory Minimum- contained 47 names.

8 employees were considered non-statutory because of DOB after THE DATE used for determination of age 21.

1 employee was considered non-statutory because of Term before THE DATE following attainment of age 21.

35 employees were considered non-statutory because of DOH After THE DATE.

3 employees were considered non-statutory because of Term before THE DATE following 1 year of service.

My contention is that there are 38 employees on that list of 47 that it was not according to code to put there. There are 9 that fall under the age issue you posted about. For those 9 there could be a discussion about the proper date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 410b

Hi Mike,

I’ll not try to quantify the number of confusions, but I agree that there are some. Also stress. I just went for a caffeinated pop.

Fiscal year plan – May 1 ---- to April 30 ----.

I understand that you are indicating there is a problem with the way dates are being used now, but I am going start by stating that situation as best I can.

From the SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION:

ENTERING THE PLAN:

-Once you have satisfied the eligibility requirements, you will become a participant on an ‘entry date’. The entry dates are the first day of each calendar month.-

Three additional statements I find in the SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION:

-You may change the rate of your contributions up or down effective as of the first day of any quarter of any plan year.-

-You may stop contributing entirely at any time. If you stop contributing, you may start your 401(k) contributions again as of the first day of any quarter of any plan year.-

-To make a pay reduction agreement, change your contribution percentage or stop contributing, you must follow the procedures established for this purpose by the plan administrator.-

The basic rule that I have always been told is that the company will only process paperwork on a quarterly basis. When I discovered and made inquiry about the “monthly entry date” provision a few years back, I was told that the company was allowed a time gap there in order to reduce the burden of plan administration. That left me with the concept of “monthly entry” and “quarterly enrollment”.

To prepare the census data for the testing company, I review the payroll files for April to March hire dates (May to April entry dates) of the appropriate years and add those to the other participants.

I didn’t have the semi-annual date breaks in my head at all, until this year when I started trying to understand the NDT test results better and why the test report had two sections. At that point I learned that the tester’s test procedures regroup NHCEs who are not 21 or have not finished 12 months of service as of the last semi-annual entry date in the plan year (ie 11/01/---- in our plan). See my post to Kim for 4 categories of employees in the regrouped NHCEs. So you are correct, the semi-annual date I mentioned is used by the tester for –carve out- purposes only.

Sample for one of the 35 reclassed due to DOH After 11/1/05.

NAME1. DOB APRIL 1954. DOH 11/14/2005. ENTRY DATE 12/01/2006. Disaggregated due to service of less than one year.

This employee had service of more than one year. They had to have that service in order to be in the census list. Given the plan’s entry requirements, I can see no legitimate way that this employee can be eliminated from the ADP test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

410b, first of all, let me say that this discussion is a breath of fresh air. It is wonderful dealing with somebody who doesn't have the taint of learning what a predecessor from within the industry has been doing previously. You are, quite rightly, relying solely on the actual language of the plan, the SPD, the Code and the regs. And you are insisting that they be taken as written. Bravo.

On the other hand, welcome to our world. We are constantly dealing with ambiguities in the combination of the plan, the SPD, the Code and the regs and somewhere, somehow, we have to disambiguate. Sometimes it just ain't fun.

This is one of those times.

There are two issues, as I see them.

First, you really need to get an opinion from counsel regarding the plan's administrative practice of denying a new participant the right to defer until the beginning of the first quarter after they are eligible. I will be so bold as to suggest that even if counsel can find room to support what you have done in the past, that you change that practice as soon as you possibly can; possibly by amending the plan so as to make clear that the change is being caused by a conscious decision and not just a seemingly arbitrary modification to the plan's administrative practices.

OK, that issue is dealt with and needn't be discussed again, if you don't want to do so.

The far more complicated issue is who can be considered "otherwise excludable" (let's use the real terms, if we can, since you are coming at this from a "let's use the real rules" perspective; it will help disambiguate as much as is possible).

We agree that a NDT can be run based on segregating your plan's population into two groups, where group 1 is those that are "otherwise excludable" and group 2 is everybody else (or, if you prefer, non-excludable).

The definition of "otherwise excludable" is found in the regulations under IRS Section 410(b). You might want to find Regulation Section 1.410(b)-6 and read it. It is kind of long, so I won't repeat it here, but it is entitled "Excludable employees". Here is one of the sections that bear on this issue:

"The effect of this rule is that employees who would be excludable under paragraph (b)(1) this section (applied without regard to section 410(a)(1)(B)) but for the fact that the plan does not apply the greatest permissable minimum age and service conditions may be treated as excludable employees with repsect to the plan."

At issue is how to determine "the greatest permissable minimum age and service conditions".

You certainly acknowledge that the age conditions of your plan are not the greatest permissable.

You have indicated that you think your plan's service conditions are identical to those that are the greatest permissable.

You have indicated that since 410(b)(4)(B) doesn't mention entry dates that such dates can't be considered. I suggest you read 410(b)(4)© which specifically mentions entry dates. The regs carry this forward.

But it is still less than perfectly clear what is meant because 410(b)(4)© states: "An employee shall not be treated as meeting the age and service requirements described in this paragraph until the first date on which, under the plan, any employee with the same age and service would be eligible to commence participation in the plan."

Believe it or not, that section seems ambiguous to some. Some read it as you have asserted: you must use the plan's actual entry dates for dividing between those who are statutorily eligible and those who are not.

But others read that section (and the corresponding regulation section) to incorporate a theoretical definition within the plan of that which would delay participation until the last legal moment; which would be the use of semi-annual entry dates.

You need to decide which you are most comfortable with (you ARE the client, after all) after consultation with your advisors.

I can tell you that many a test has been performed using the statutory entry dates as a substitute for the plan's entry dates in testing otherwise excludable.

As I have stated in a prior message, there is not agreement at the IRS as to which is the proper construction.

You are certainly within your rights to take the approach you think most conservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 410b

Ok, I am working to get the "otherwise excludable" concept in my head.

I will have to search out the document you are talking about, what I am looking at is headed "Definitions and Special Rules" at that location.

In the meantime:

otherwise excludable is confusing so I was trying to think about what it might relate to. That takes me to the employer side of things.

On that side, are there some concrete undisputable items? Such as:

Subject to clerical entry errors:

Employee DOB, DOH, and termination date (I don't know the proper initials for that one).

When you have a/the method for determining hours:

A year of service.

Based on plan documents,

The employer's plan entry dates for a given plan year.

Based on the above items:

Whether or not an employee may enter the plan, and the plan entry date of those who were allowed to enter.

And based on all of those:

The initial list/database/census of employees for the NDT test.

Compensation (ie HCE or NHCE) is irrelevant in regard to getting the list of names. The only date relationships that matter are the relationships between specific dates in the payroll records and specific dates mentioned in the plan.

I'm seeing those as clearly defined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a good start. You've identified the testing population.

Within that population you now divide them into (1) those who would still be on the list if the plan's eligibility and entry were the maximum allowed by law, and (2) those who are "otherwise excludable". The two subgroups are tested as though they were separate plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

regarding otherwise excludables:

(trying to keep it real simple, and completely ignoring entry dates)

the code says you can exclude people who worked less than 1 year and age 21

you indicated your plan lets people in as young as age 18.

so you were being more generous than you had to - anyone age 18 - 21 could have been excluded.

so they are referred to as 'otherwise excludable'

now quite often, these people because they are so young don't defer - thus they would be a 0 on the ADP test, making it harder to pass testing. Because the govt wants the opportunity provided to as many people as possible to defer, they will not 'punish' by forcing you to include these people in the major testing just because you were more generous by letting them into the plan.

hope that helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 410b

NOT

otherwise excludable [from the testing population]

BUT

otherwise excludable [from the requirement to test against HCEs]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOT

otherwise excludable [from the testing population]

BUT

otherwise excludable [from the requirement to test against HCEs]

No, because occasionally you will have an HCE in the otherwise excludable group. (for example if the owner's children come to work for the company) It's just that "otherwise excludables" are tested separately from the rest of the group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 410b

One:

Thanks for the thinking clarification.

Two:

Off the thread topic a bit, but your response triggered another question.

I thought I had seen a thread/message/comment somewhere while searching that indicated that you weren't allowed to put any HCE's in the otherwise excludable test group.

So

Are you allowed to put an under 21 HCE in the otherwise excludable test group?

If you have otherwise excludable NHCEs and an under 21 HCE are they required to be in the otherwise excludable test group too?

If you have a low paid under 21 family member type HCE, wouldn't it be advantageous to have them in the HCE group?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...