Leaderboard

I don't have a spreadsheet that I can share, but if I did, it would have these column headings: Attorney name Phone number Email address What I am saying is, there is not a deterministic formula for saying if an ASG exists or not. You need to make a number of factual determinations, including: Is a particular organization a service organization? What entity is the first service organization? Does one organization regularly perform services for another? Is a significant portion of the entity's income derived from providing services? Are the services performed by one entity of a type historically performed by another? There are no spreadsheet functions to answer these questions.

Datair does it too and nicely, at least my experience. Same way Bri explained.

Meaning they make the effective date of the restatement 7/1 (for example), rather than 1/1? No issue unless you change the plan year with the restatement. Also, just have to avoid changing stuff that can't be changed in a safe harbor plan. Otherwise no huge issues.

What purposes does the sponsor want the amendment to be retroactively effective for? If for 401(a)(4) or 410(b), you can do it as a 1.401(a)(4)-11(g) amendment, although you indicated that there was no coverage or nondiscrimination failure that would need correcting. If for 401(a)(26), you can do it as a 1.401(a)(26)-7(c) amendment, which operates under similar rules to -11(g). If for minimum funding/maximum deduction purposes, too late. The deadline to adopt a 412(d)(2) amendment for 2021 was March 15, 2022. If none of the above: then just make the amendment effective in 2022, and give them credit for 2021 for accrual service.

gc@chimentowebb.com, there are of course proposed 457(f) regulations that are fairly clear and reasonable on this point, and that can be relied on until withdrawn or changed in the final. Given that it is a "facts and circumstances" determination, there is no bright line certainty, but my guess would be that what you describe is probably not outside the boundaries, assuming the amount of vacation per year is reasonable and designed to actually have employees take vacation, i.e. the employee could reasonably be expected to take it and would be unlikely to use it as a "piggy bank." I would probably be concerned if the frequency of "extra staffing needs" led to a situation where the 25% limit on cashouts was seldom applicable in practice. But again, it's facts and circumstances and I'm sure your brief description leaves out some of those. Here is the language from the proposed regulations on this point: Factors used in determining whether a plan is a bona fide sick or vacation leave plan include whether the amount of leave provided could reasonably be expected to be used in the normal course by an employee (before the employee ceases to provide services to the eligible employer) absent unusual circumstances, the ability to exchange unused accumulated leave for cash or other benefits (including nontaxable benefits and the use of leave to postpone the date of termination of employment), the applicable restraints (if any) on the ability to accumulate unused leave and carry it forward to subsequent years in circumstances in which the accumulated leave may be exchanged for cash or other benefits, the amount and frequency of any in-service distributions of cash or other benefits offered in exchange for accumulated and unused leave, whether any payment of unused leave is made promptly upon severance from employment (or instead is paid over a period after severance from employment), and whether the program (or a particular feature of the program) is available only to a limited number of employees.

We have often noted that the advice you receive on this site is worth every penny you pay for it. This question is more complicated than I would care to answer on this board. The difficulty is not in saying "yes" or "no" (actually the answer is a qualified "yes"), but in going into the myriad issues raised by the question, preparing, explaining and defending the analysis. And then you would only have the opinion of a stranger who may or may not know what he is talking about. Your best bet is to engage an attorney who specializes in employee benefits and not only ask your question, but ask that he analyze the entire situation and make recommendations how to keep out of trouble.