Leaderboard

All you can do is estimate it in a reasonable manner, and clearly explain that it is only an estimate, and that final numbers will be based on final market rates. One option for an estimate would be to use this site, which I have used for years for rough estimates: https://www.immediateannuities.com/

A mid-year change to make some employees cease to be eligible for a 401(k) safe harbor plan (because they are now eligible for a spin-off plan) is prohibited by Notice 2016-16, Section III.D.2. In other words, I don't believe that Bill Presson's latest idea works.

I don't think the quoted section necessarily applies to an EACA, it comes from the QACA regs. Uniformity for EACA is defined in 1.414(w)-1(b)(2), which references only 1.401(k)-3(j)(2)(iii). What about 1.401(k)-3(j)(2)(iii)(B), which says that the default percentage may not reduce the contribution rate for any employee?

We know that it does not disrupt the top-heavy exclusion. In Revenue Ruling 2004-13, Situation 4, the IRS said that a plan that doesn't give the safe harbor matching contribution to those with less than a year of service but lets them contribute to the plan would not meet the exclusion, but it didn't seem to have a problem with allocating the same match to HCEs. I do think your argument has some merit, that my position seems to be inconsistent with the top-heavy exclusion for safe harbor plans. However, the place to look for how "safe harbor contribution" is defined in Notice 2016-16 is Treas. Reg. Section 1.401(k)-3 because that is what that Notice is interpreting.

See: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/irs-penalty-relief-for-dol-dfvc-filers-of-late-annual-reports

We still don't know whether it is an EZ or SF, do we?

Agree with Luke Bailey. We had a client a few years ago that received an IRS Notice and a bill for $15,000 because he forgot to file. We filed for him under DFVC and client paid the fee. We presented to IRS and the $15,000 came right off. As long as you file prior to receiving any correspondence from DOL, you're OK.

By making a 3% NESH for the whole year. No ADP testing. It's all one year. SH match is not allowed so don't complicate things by thinking about what would have been. If the plan says match is calc'd on a per payroll basis, then it is what it is. If it says it is calc'd on an annual basis, then you'll have to review matching contributions at the end of the year and evaluate whether the actual matches made (I like to describe matches made on a per-payroll basis when the plan says they are calc'd on an annual basis as "estimated" contributions) need to be tweaked to comply with the document provisions.

I don't. It's only a problem if you see the contributions that are for HCEs that are calculated in the same way as SH's as "provisions that satisfy the rules of this section," but clearly they're not that, because if when you drafted your plan or filled out your adoption agreement you had said "no" to SH contributions for HCEs, your SH plan would still have all the "provisions that satisfy the rules of this section" and be a SH plan. Right. That's one way of articulating the difference between our positions. I don't see them as that, and since you didn't need to make SH applicable to HCEs in the first place, I think my position is more consistent with reg language. Sure. Ill-considered plan language could make it more of an uphill battle than it otherwise would be. Would need to review actual plan language to assess risk, with IRS or court. I would think an EP exams agent would be pretty sympathetic, given that it only impacts HCEs and is for business survival, and I also think Appeals and higher would agree with my (and MWeddell's) position on the legal issue. It would seem to me the greater risk would probably come from the disgruntled physician, investment banker, or lawyer (god help us from those!) who terminates employment after SH-like contributions are stopped for HCEs.

Safe harbor match requires a notice to be given before the beginning of the plan year. Therefore it is impossible to add SH match mid-year. Thanks to the SECURE Act it is now possible to add SH nonelective mid-year or even retroactively after the end of the year.

Not sure there are exact guidelines. But during a webinar that Brian Graff was doing for us last week, I asked him this specific question. He said that the "intent" of the legislation (based on his discussions with the drafters) is that the amounts would be those attributable to that 8 week window and associated with those payrolls. If employers do differently than that, their mileage may vary. WCP

I don't think this is known for sure. I have some accountants that are trying to sync up retirement plan contributions very carefully "for" the 8 week payroll period, and others that are ok with funding 2019 contributions, and some pre-funding any/all 2020 contributions.

You need to file under DFVCP before the DOL contacts you. The fact that the IRS has contacted you does not disqualify you from DFVCP, only being contacted by DOL can do that. And IRS will typically not assess penalties if you file through DFVCP with DOL. No guarantee that this will work, but I would strongly consider filing amended 5500's right away checking the DFVCP box on page 1 and then go online and pay the DFVCP fee and hope that DOL does not contact you first.

Then you can't do it. Notice 2016-16 covers permissible mid-year changes to safe harbor plans, and prohibits a mid-year change to reduce or narrow the group of employees eligible to receive safe harbor contributions.