Leaderboard

But how do you not notice this for 9 years????

That's a typical actuarian comment.

We would show an In Plan Roth Rollover as a related rollover on our software. It would be included in Top Heavy and would be subject to rollover rules. Since the funds were never actually withdrawn, that's what made sense to us ...

A CG or ASG exists (or doesn't) on every day of the year. Its existence (or non-existence) mostly affects coverage testing, so it matters which method you're using to satisfy coverage. Assuming you're using the annual method of 1.410(b)-8(a)(4) , you need to satisfy coverage on the last day of the year taking into account all employees who were eligible at any point during the year. If an employee was eligible for the portion of 2020 while the ASG existed, but ceased to be eligible once the ASG ceased to exist, they would still need to be included in coverage testing for 2020.

Thank you Bill, 100% in agreement.

Did the piloting ever get the actuarial to agree? (Adjectives galore)

I wish I could "like" this twice. I refuse to make the client's problem my problem just because their team of attorneys didn't do their due diligence.

It's so tiring telling people that we could have provided options if they had only consulted us prior to the transaction. The M&A attorneys should be sued for malpractice.

My go-to description of my job in social situations: I work with 401k plans. They have a lot of rules and regulations they have to follow, and we help make sure they do that. Because if I only left it at "I work with 401k plans" they think I'm an investment guy.

My software is coming up with "401(a)(4) Failed; both the gateway as well as the ABPT passed. How is this not passing 401(a)(4)

The Gateway and Average Benefit Test are just two components of "New Comparability Testing". Personally, I hate that term since it is somewhat misleading. "Rate Group Testing" coordinates with the testing concepts found in the posts by CB Zeller and Lou S., and is the term I prefer. Semantics aside, this type of plan testing is not simply passing the Gateway and the Average Benefits Test. I explain the testing for these plans when needed as you must first pass the Gateway, if you are using projected benefits in testing. (Current rates are used in what is sometimes called an "Age Neutral Plans", and that plan is not subject to the Gateway.) Contrary to one seminar that has since been removed from circulation, giving a 5% of pay benefit to all NCE does not let you do whatever you want. Next, you must satisfy a special form of coverage testing for each rate group where each HCE represents a rate group. A plan level (all sources) average benefit test is needed if any of the rate groups fail the special coverage testing; which assume that no group is classified as below the unsafe harbor percentage. Anticipating negative commentary toward my grossly oversimplified explanation, I know that I am leaving a whole lot out, and don't intend for this post to be a comprehensive explanation. I strongly suggest that to gain the understanding that is required for this type of testing, get yourself a copy of the Coverage and Nondiscrimination Answer Book, which has one of its authors Mr. Thomas E. Poje. Personally, I have found commentary of Mr. Poje to be a great resource. His explanations, including guidance found in "his book" to be among the best explanations of this very complicated topic. (I apologize to the Frank J. Bitzer and Bernadine Topazio for not properly recognizing their contributions to an amazing resource. You deserve similar recognition, and my failure to properly do so reflects my familiarity with Mr. Poje's writing/posts.) Anyway, I also recommend that you do a search of the message boards on this testing, and pay special attention to comments by Mr. Poje and several others who have an obvious expertise with this form of testing (BG5150, Bird, John Feldt, CB Zeller, Lou S., jpod, Kevin C. and Mike Preston are a few off the top of my head.) Good luck!