Leaderboard

What are they waiting on? for the market to recover? They cant delay a distribution in hopes that the investments will increase in value before they distribute. They probably (depending on the document) could do a special valuation to take the losses into consideration, but it may be a little late for that.

Here's a summary of 9 cases filed as of last August; maybe the authors would be willing to provide an update? https://www.truckerhuss.com/2019/08/defined-benefit-plan-actuarial-equivalence-litigation-a-formidable-threat-or-an-unfounded-theory/

If the matching contributions meet the definition of a QMAC (safe harbor contributions would, generally) then they may be used in either the ADP test or the ACP test, but not both. The plan will be subject to both tests.

1.401(k)-3(k)(2) says that when applying 1.401(k)-3(c) [the SH Match] to a QACA, the basic safe harbor match formula is replaced with the QACA match formula. The basic SH match is the minimum that must be provided to be safe harbor. 1.401(k)-3(c)(1) includes the option to have an enhanced match [1.401(k)-3(c)(3)]. So yes, you can provide a larger match in a QACA than the minimum required. If you are using a pre-approved document, it should have an option to use an enhanced QACA match. Our volume submitter document allows it.

It does not. Your plan language may say otherwise, but nothing regulatory requires it.

Datair was wrong if I understand what you are doing. There is some guidance out there somewhere that says plan provisions or the way they are interpreted can not be described as a significant detriment to the terminated employee leaving money in a plan.

First comment: doesn't your plan have language dealing with this. I'm out of my office for a few days, but I believe the plan language allows a forfeiture with the requirement to restore it if it is ever necessary. Second comment: does anyone think it is legal to "freeze" the accounts from gains/losses when someone terminates. Never heard of such a thing but, not being in the office, I can't research it. Certainly seem like it could be discriminatory.

The total refund will be the $3,135.58 of excess contributions plus earnings, since it is larger than the excess deferral of $2,800 plus earnings. If the excess deferrals are distributed first, it reduces the distribution needed to correct the excess contributions. If the excess contributions are distributed first, it reduces the amount needed to correct the excess deferrals.

The refund is the $3,135.58 plus earnings. The first $2,800 plus earnings is refunded as excess deferral. The remaining $335.58 plus earnings is refunded as excess contribution. You do not need to refund the $2,800 twice as both excess deferral and excess contribution but you will have two 1099-Rs in this case.

You value a term vested at end of year based on actual events through end of year. Generating a benefit statement on fictitious information is never the preferred course.