Leaderboard

I (still) say no. There was an old thread on this and somebody named Bird had a convincing argument; last word and no rebuttals.

see 1.401(a)(4)-12 definitions very briefly: testing age - testing age means the age determined for the employees under the following rules: (1)...normal retirement age is plan has uniform retirement age (2) if plan has different retirement ages for different groups use latest retirement age of anyone (3)if no uniform retirement age use age 65 (4) if an employee is beyond the testing age otherwise determined in (1) through (3) the testing age is the employees current age 65/5 is considered uniform. if perchance the person in question only has 3 years of participation, maybe that is what the software is using, if that is how retirement is coded.

Doesn't it come down tot he loan agreement? Can't you have a cure period that is less than the statutory max?

Someone may have posted this one here before - not my invention, certainly. There is a day coming up in May when all the skunks come out of hibernation and have a big party to celebrate the end of winter. It's called: . . . . . . .Wait for it . . . . . . . . . . . .Stinko De Mayo

The EPCRS correction for an excess allocation is to remove the funds (plus earnings) and put them in a "unallcoated account." (I call it a "suspense account") NOTE: It does not say anything about "forfeiting" the money or putting it into a "forfeiture account." It further goes one to say that the ER cannot make any contributions as long as there are funds in the suspense account. That means the next ER contrib will be offset by the amount in the suspense account. Section 6.06 (2) Nor does it say anything about whether it's a Safe Harbor or regular match or profit sharing. It's odd that the various record keeping systems have yet to add a suspense (unallocated) account along with a forfeiture account.