Jump to content

Amendment for PS


jmartinrps
 Share

Recommended Posts

A law firm has a plan with a 1 year (1,000 hr) service requirement for profit sharing. Entry is monthly. They hired a new attorney 12/15/13. She satisfied the requirements 12/15/14. She would enter the plan for PS purposes on 1/1/15.

Unfortunately they told her she would get PS in 2014. Since she is a nhce for 2014 (may be a HCE in 2015, not sure since they use top 20), can the plan be amendment bringing her specifically in the plan by name for ps purposes? I know they could have in December 2014 for sure but was unsure since it is 2015.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any other opinions? She is definitely a NHCE. Let's add another scenario: The plan has 4 allocation groups. Group 1 is the top level partners. Group 2 is mid level partners. Group 3 is remaining partners and staff. Group 4 is any nhce required to get a contribution to pass rate group testing.

Could this nhce be amended into group IV to get a contribution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am with QDRO on this one. And in my experience situations like this are usually readily cured by saying "we're sorry, we can't do it, but we will give you $X cash instead." If there is a vesting schedule, you can commit to deferred compensation that becomes vested and payable commensurate with the plan's vesting schedule.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure a test could be run that shows a failure, and then be shown such that adding that one individual makes that specific type of test pass.

That said, I really think it's a bad idea to design certain plan features around one person, for example a client that adds a provision because one employee now "needs this". So, from a philisophical standpoint, I totally agree with QDRO and jpod. Maybe even more so if you're talking about a larger plan.

For some very small employers, getting a benefit in the plan to this one employee could be big deal to the employer-employee relationship, especially if verbal promises were made and the employer wants to maintain their full trust. The regulation is not written to say that the plan, after having exhausted all possible testing scenarios, does not pass, so again, I believe -11(g) is available.

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...