Leaderboard

I think the window is now 3 years?

I think you had me at the fact that I am satisfying each and every requirement to make the amendment under EPCRS... Well I haven't done anything yet, I guess that's the dilemma. If I could go back in time and not look at that document I might take that option, LOL. But I think you've satisfied me with your last post!

austin3515, here's the section I was thinking of. 4.05(2)(a) of Rev. Proc. 2021-30: (a) Correction of Operational Failure by plan amendment for a Qualified Plan or § 403(b) Plan. A Plan Sponsor of a Qualified Plan or § 403(b) Plan may correct an Operational Failure by plan amendment in order to conform the terms of the plan to the plan’s prior operations only if the following conditions are satisfied: (i) The plan amendment would result in an increase of a benefit, right, or feature. (ii) The provision of the increase in the benefit, right, or feature to participants is permitted under the Code (including the requirements of §§ 401(a)(4), 410(b), 411(d)(6), and 403(b)(12), as applicable), and satisfies the correction principles of section 6.02 and any other applicable rules of this revenue procedure. Increase of BRF? Check. Satisfies the various Code sections? Yes, as long as the < 12 months group satisfies 410(b). Satisfies general correction principes? Don't see why not. If you intentionally do it wrong, you may not qualify for self-correction because you do not have a good procedure. However, what about strikes you as "intentional?" Catching the error on your own <> committing the error intentionally.

Austin3515, why doesn't this qualify for self-correction by amendment under the latest EPCRS Rev. Proc.? Have you looked at that and determined it does not apply for some reason?

There has been discussion on this issue in the past. If you use the search box you might be able to dig up the thread. From memory, there were two key points: 1. the plan should have some kind of written administrative procedure that says deferral elections will be honored only to the extent possible, taking into account the actual compensation available after other withholdings and deductions, and 2. cash tips, while still compensation, can't be used to fund deferrals, because in order to be a deferral it has to be paid by the employer to the trust before it is received by the employee, and that can't happen if the employee received the tip in cash.

I like to use gender-neutral terms like "the participant" to avoid any misunderstandings. Singular "they" should be acceptable in most situations as well.

I agree, but be careful because: If you have any participants who are receiving an allocation of prevailing wage contributions, and that contribution is being included in the testing for the profit sharing allocation, then you have to include those participants as benefiting under the profit sharing portion of the plan, regardless of whether they met the plan's allocation conditions. For example, if you have an employee who terminated but who received a prevailing wage contribution equal to 2% of pay, they are now in your test. If the gateway minimum is 5%, then this person would have to get an extra 3% as a profit sharing contribution in order to pass the test, even though they didn't meet the conditions for a profit sharing contribution. Most plan documents that I've seen include an automatic waiver of allocation conditions if needed to pass the gateway test.

Generally a participant wouldn't be "forced" to select a particular form of benefit, since whenever a plan is subject to QJSA it also has to offer the participant a QOSA. If they make the QJSA the 100% survivor annuity, then the QOSA would be a 50% survivor annuity. The QOSA can be elected by the participant without spousal consent. 1.411(d)-3(c) provides rules about how and when redundant forms of benefit can be eliminated.

BG5150 - I was referencing the line that the participant is also a plan trustee. We all seem to be doubting that each employee gets to be a trustee like that. If the participant is a capital-T Trustee for realsies and refuses to accept the contribution/set up the account, that's certainly problematic, no? (And might there be other Trustees upon whom the responsibility might fall to set up the account as directed by the employer? I asked about vesting because if she was going to leave while nonvested, they could set up a dummy account to hold the soon-to-be-forfeiture.)

This is normally when I provide my checking account number and vow to hold the money..... ☺️ I agree with Bill. If the plan provides for a benefit for her, but she is unwilling to accept responsibility for it's management, it's up to a plan fiduciary to do so. BTW, I'm not sure the "everyone is trustee of their own account" would survive if challenged. The plan administrator may not be able to "properly delegate" that responsibility - especially if the participant refuses, and can't make the contribution contingent upon their doing so....

I think you misread the first post. It's not the plan sponsor who doesn't want the account, but an employee/participant.

Just because a participant can do something doesn't mean they have to do so. If a participant can direct the investment of their money but chooses not to, then the trustee of the plan has to set up the account and invest the money for the participant. And are you sure the participants are actually trustees of their own account? That would be incredibly unusual and I'm not even sure it can be done.

I'll toss this out as a possibility - any chance that the plan provides for PS with everybody in their own group, and if so, would contributing the otherwise "missed" match in the appropriate amounts to those employees pass testing? Of course, even if this could work, might be issues if vesting for the PS is less favorable than for the match...

You do not need to be failing anything to do an 11-g amendment.

That's because there's no corresponding "form" showing the 40,000 rollover contribution INTO the plan. I think your plan of action sounds sounds right. (Imagine someone job-hopping and taking the same rollover account from plan to plan to, say, four companies within the same year. His 1099s will certainly be way higher than his actual balance.)

You missed [t](s)he[y]

I think you're on it, except you wouldn't count the D-B money being applied towards the matching formula in the profit sharing rate group tests. (Just the average benefits percentage test) I don't recall when the employer has to declare how much counts as which type between non-elective and match, though. Could depend on the allocation date as defined in the document.

You'll need to make the missed safe harbor match along with lost earnings. You need to correct under EPCRS. I'm not sure if you can self correct this failure in the 2 year window or not or if you need a VCP submission. Failure to correct is a plan qualification issue.

You need to allocate reasonably ratably over not longer than 7 years. It can be fewer than 7 years, but I think you need to map out an approximate allocation schedule and stick to it. It is subject to 415, so in your above example that person could get $58k for 2021 provided (s)he had no other additions. ER is nor deducting so the 25% PS limit should not be in play. But then you should continue at same approximate amount until the escrow is exhauster.

Well, you cannot allocate more than the 415 limit for any one year.