Leaderboard

A couple of Q&A items from the 2012 ASPPA Annual Conference DC Q&A session are relevant to this discussion if it involves a SH plan. #39 - SH 401(k) fails 410(b). Question is does the -11(g) amendment to correct the 410(b) failure violate the mid-year amendment prohibition for the year the amendment is adopted? Answer is no and the IRS agreed. #37 - SH 401(k) that only covers salaried employees. Question is can they amend mid-year to make hourly employees eligible? IRS answer is yes, provided the amendment doesn't adversely affect those already eligible. I'll also point out that there are no rules in 1.401(k)-3 or 1.401(m)-3 that apply to plan eligibility requirements. The SH mid-year amendment prohibition applies to provisions that satisfy rules in those sections. So, even if it is a SH plan, you should be safe in making the amendment be effective for both 2014 and 2015. However, you may not want to have it effective for 2015 if the plan will pass 410(b) for 2015 without the amendment. Amending now to retroactively bring in previously excluded employees means that they become improperly excluded for that retroactive period. The correction for that is for the employer to make a corrective deposit. Why do a correction for 2015 unless you have to?

It's possible your question is answered in Reg. 1.401(l)-2(d). Of course, the 401(l) regs are safe harbor provisions, which might not apply to your plan. Hey, I'm no expert; there could be a different applicable reg.

I agree; I wouldn't second-guess the participants. If it's a small-enough plan, someone could contact the participants and say "hey you have multiple TD funds which is somewhat unusual; if you want to change please go to the website and do so." (Deliberately phrasing it in such a way to put the burden of change on them.) But it is possible it is deliberate. It is also possible that it doesn't make any difference at the moment - far-off target date funds can have identical allocations. I'd be inclined to minimize any action on this. (I'm not anti-TD funds in general, but I am against the concept of re-enrolling into TD funds, and mapping to TD funds. I think someone over-thought the issue too much and all of a sudden it's a "thing.")

if it was a safe harbor match I don't think it could be done because that would be prefunded a match which the IRS has said is taboo. or at least that is what I recall.

I fall back on the rule of thumb Sal Tripodi sets forth in the EOB. Imagine the public policy position of disallowing an amendment that expands coverage. It's ridiculous. So Employer A excludes Class B from the Plan, but desires to provide Class B with retirement benefits. IRS disqualifies the Plan or penalizes Employer A merely for providing retirement benefits to a class of people it was previously denying such benefits. It is too hard to imagine even for the IRS. According to Sal, disallowing such an amendment that so clearly contradicts established public policy is "ridiculous" (I think in one version of his book he actually uses the word ridiculous).

good point I hadn't thought of that, I suppose some mid0year amendments could be problematic in that case. Though the OP does not mention if it is a SH plan or not.

there is no reason why you can't have a corrective amendment for 2014 also apply for 2015. simply have the amendment drafted to apply to 2014 & 2015 plan years.

yes, an the deadline is 1.401(a)(4)-11(g)(3)(iv) 15th day of the 10th month following close of plan year e.g. Oct 15 for a calendar year plan. otherwise you have to use VCP

For many, it's difficult and tiring to read everything on a monitor. Errors and/or shortcuts can be the result.

Print them out!