Leaderboard

ombskid - either your client has the expertise to manage the fiduciary responsibilities of offering loans (and not just the payment issues) or needs to hire such expertise or should consider not offering loans. After all, it's a RETIREMENT plan, not a bank. My apologies for shouting. To me, the idea of plan loans is like a roaring flame about 3 feet tall.

Make the acquisition date a special entry date.

Someone suggested that the term is a mistaken hearing of "big league" which can be used as an adjective. Mind you, I am not trying to be an apologist or a language reparer.

There still might be an issue that needs to be corrected, but it just doesn't get reported like the auditor is requesting.

I even agree we should refuse to accept that as a word. It just seemed appropriate in the context of my comment....

Bah. have you forgotten how bigly my heart grew one day? (Thankfully it shrunk back to its normal size and I could get back to being the Grinch. Narrator: And what happened, then? Well, in Whoville they say-that the Grinch's small heart grew three sizes that day.

Anti-cutback rule only protects accrued benefits - not the right to accrue future benefits. So, if you have immediate eligibility, and you amend for the next year to be one year of service, then those folks who participated previously but do NOT have a year of service in any year will not be eligible to participate. You CAN grandfather in existing participants, but aren't required to. Of course, if they have already satisfied a year of service, then the amendment won't exclude them. You'd have to find a valid exclusion classification to then exclude any such people. I see ETA replied while I was typing...I type very slowly with all these extra thumbs.

Interesting plan design. After some reading, it appears you would not be able to do this using a safe harbor match in the design. 401(k)(3)(A) and 401(m)(2)(B) have language that with HCE's in 2 or more plans of the employer, you count all deferrals and all match in each plan when you determine if the plan passes the discrimination rules. I think that prevents you from having the HCEs receive a SH match in both plans because of the limits on SH matches . 1.401(m)-3(d)(5) is pretty specific that it would cause a problem with the ACP safe harbor. I'm guessing that's why the two examples mentioned used the 3% SH.

Yep, a 403(b) and 401(a) of a particular employer are aggregated for purposes of the 402(g) limit, but not for purposes of the 415© limit. However, if the employee has a business that the employee controls (e.g., a professor in a med school who also has an independent practice as a physician), the 403(b) is combined with any 401(a) of the business controlled by the employee for 415© purposes.