Leaderboard

And they are exempt from the encore if they roll-in their old 401k...I can do this all day!

I'd STEAK my life I've HERD some of this before, but it beHOOVES me to stoop to such standards. Besides, I'm too much of a COWHERD, and I'm sure it PASTURE time to even care. thanks for the morning chuckle.

A MOOving response which is UDDERLY ridiculous. You are MILKING this situation for all it is worth. Although your knowledge puts you in the CREAM of the crop, and your responses are legenDAIRY, there's no point in trying to BUTTER me up here. However, in spite of all the BULL, I appreciate you STEERing me in the right direction, and not succumbing to the HERD mentality. This could go on and on, but I lack the time to COW-tow any further.

I agree with Tom that it would be considered a reduction in the SH contribution. If they do it mid-year, they need to comply with 1.401(k)-3(g). Is it worth losing the SH over?

well, I would say if you start excluding some comp, then you have, in effect, while you haven't suspended it, you have reduced the safe harbor during the year. The IRS has the following comments in regards to that: Some changes, such as reduction or suspension of safe harbor contributions, adding or dropping safe harbor status, or changes in plan years, are permitted only as described in existing regulations https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/mid-year-changes-to-safe-harbor-plans-or-safe-harbor-notices

No, the distribution is payable to the participant because it is a trailing distribution that is already subject to the distribution election the participant made before he died. The payment is not made to the participant's beneficiary. Not sure why the financial institution is requiring the opening of an estate when it is not required in the participant's state of residence and the trailing distribution relates to a distribution the participant elected before death and is payable to the participant, not the beneficiary.

Yep, sorry, I was referring to an old post, not old regulations. I've spent the last week mired in these regulations, and my brain is going.

"Section 1.409A-1(d)(1) provides that an amount is not considered subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture beyond the date or time at which the recipient otherwise could have elected to receive the amount of compensation, unless the present value of the amount made subject to a risk of forfeiture is materially greater than the present value of the amount the recipient otherwise could have elected to receive absent such risk of forfeiture." You're telling me a 50% match would leave doubt??