Leaderboard

I don't see where anybody is talking -11g in this thread. That just confuses things. The fact is that the permitted disparity safe harbors are only available to structures that satisfy the permitted disparity safe harbors in connection with a written formula. This thread has been talking about "a cross tested" plan, which everybody assumes mean everybody in their own group and that there is no formula of any kind and that there is no need for an -11g amendment of any kind. To confirm that the entire industry thinks it works this way, check with whoever does your testing software to see whether their 401a4 module has an option to use anything other than 100% of the taxable wage base as the integration level when testing on contributions. Further, test a simple case with two participants, one with comp in excess of the SSWB and an HCE, the other with comp less than the SSWB and an NHCE. Run it with "everybody in their own group". Allocate an amount that is consistent with a safe harbor formula using something lower than 100% of the SSWB as the integration level. Run the a4 test. Try to make it pass. Or you could just read the a4 regs again and find that when computing contribution rates the use of 100% of the SSWB is required when imputing permitted disparity.

They are required assuming his beneficiary will receive the proceeds (and not as key man insurance that is payable to the plan). He has years where he failed to report taxable income; if he gets caught he gets caught. There is also the minor issue of recovery of PS 58 costs at some eventual date but I will ignore that. Certainly start now, but decision has to be made about past years; but probably only for open tax years (3 years back).