Leaderboard

Beyond seeing to the plan’s and the trust’s governing documents: Remember, a custodian, recordkeeper, or other service provider might have contract rights that allow the provider to rely on information previously furnished until the plan’s administrator or other customer delivers notice to update the information. A person might deliver such a notice if the person prefers that the provider no longer be authorized to rely on an instruction from the to-be-removed trustee.

We also prepare a notification for the plan administrator to the trustee that's being removed. It is dated and signed by the PA and asks the former trustee to sign. But, it states the person is no longer a trustee the earlier of the signed acknowledgment or 31 days, whichever is earlier.

Why will they need ADP test? If they satisfy the safe harbor, seems like the elective deferrals are still covered by safe harbor and the employee contributions just need to pass ACP, which of course they won't, as you point out, if there are no NHCE employee contributions. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question, thepensionmaven.

Whether the DRO is a QDRO is a question for the administrator - provided it is entered into by a court (or other entity) with jurisdiction. It, IMHO, is totally irrelevant what the participant thinks. If the PA has made the appropriate determination, I see no reason to place a hold on the AP's claim for plan assets. Pay the PA, and deal with what is left for the participant to lay claim to. If the participant is unhappy - they need to go back to the issuer of the DRO....

Is this strictly 410(b) coverage testing, the percentage of benefiting NHCEs/HCEs? Individual allocation groups define how the allocations are made, not who is covered. If this is for coverage on rate groups, for general 401(a)(4) testing, reasonable classification does not apply.

Nitpick, it's the Average Benefits Test that may be used to pass coverage. The Average Benefits Percentage Test is a component of the Average Benefits Test, along with the Nondiscriminatory Classification Test. In my opinion, merely having an individual-groups allocation formula does not disqualify the plan from using the ABT to pass coverage. However the classification of employees who are benefiting and not benefiting under the plan must be still be reasonable, and not merely identifying employees by name. For example, a profit sharing plan is sponsored by company A, which has two divisions, X and Y. Under the terms of the plan, employees of division Y are excluded from participation. A makes a profit sharing allocation to all eligible employees of X under an individual-groups formula. The plan may use the ABT to satisfy coverage, since classification by company division is a reasonable classification. However, if an employee of X were considered non-benefiting because they were in a group that received a $0 allocation, then the classification would have the effect of classifying employees by name, and would not be reasonable. In that case the ABT could not be used.

Yes. This is a case of doing whatever is easiest. Throwing them in the trash would be ok except that whatever computer spit them out will do it again.

Purely playing Devil's Advocate here, because I have no idea. Is it possible that particularly on some of the older annuity contracts that were used to fund these 403(b)'s, that the specific contract language contains such a requirement? There's a lot of wackiness in the 403(b) world.

Do people concur that: Considering the $1 and $17 amounts described (or the sum of them), a prudent fiduciary might put no effort on trying to allocate an amount to an individual? A prudent fiduciary may apply the $18 toward meeting the plan’s expenses?

Same here - the plan doc / trust agreement will explain how trustees can be removed from either side of the agreement, possibly with that 31-day period as Bill references above. I had one I used with Relius documents and I really only had to change the Section reference to use it with ASC documents.

Absolutely cannot add a last day requirement for 2022 as every person in the plan has already satisfied the requirement for a discretionary true-up match for 2022 if one gets made. The exception, you could amend to include a last day requirement for 2022 for anyone who enters the plan (plan entry date, not deferral start date) after the later of the amendment's effective date or adoption date. So if plan entry is monthly and the plan was amended this month, you could impose a last day requirement for people entering the plan on or after 8/1/2022. Of course, this assumes your plan is not a safe harbor. If plan entry is dual then you're stuck until 2023.