Leaderboard

I think you need to get new elections, there is no basis for defaulting to an election made under a plan of another employer that was terminated before it became part of the acquiring company. If they wanted to do something like that, it should have been discussed and determined during due diligence, and could easily have been accomplished by simply merging the acquired company's plan into the acquirer's plan. Why was that not considered? Also, and I could very well be wrong, but I don't think you're prohibited from terminating a 401(k) plan in this instance, it's just that the plan termination is not a distributable event and you must transfer funds to the successor plan. If they were worried about going to employees for new elections, wanting to treat as the same plan for them, then merging or terminating and transferring certainly is consistent with that philosophy. Regardless, those horses are already out of the barn and you need to give them all new saddles (deferral elections). IMHO

I think PW, as a 401(a) amount, is treated like a discretionary PS and negates any SH TH exemption. This seems a very odd TH situation, do you have a lot of Key EEs and/or they are getting sizeable PW? Providing TH likely means contributing only for non-Key, non-PW who are not contributing (enough) then, right?

Agree, but it doesn't matter anyway. You need to have at least 80% for the "controlling interest" test, and you don't have that. The controlling interest test is where the same 5 or fewer people have ownership that equals or exceeds 80% of both corporations – and they must own at least some stock in each corporation to be considered.

Well...plan sponsors like to do strange things. The bonusses excluded from deferrals are sign on bonusses and a couple of different other types. The additional extra bonus excluded from SH match appears to be targeted to mostly the HCEs. My guess is for cost savings on the match My SH match compensation passes 414s. After doing some additional research/digging, I don't believe the deferral definition needs to pass 414s. So overall I think I am ok. 26 CFR § 1.401(k)-3 - Safe harbor requirements. (iv) Restrictions on types of compensation that may be deferred. A plan may limit the types of compensation that may be deferred by an eligible employee under a plan, provided that each eligible NHCE is permitted to make elective contributions under a definition of compensation that would be a reasonable definition of compensation within the meaning of § 1.414(s)-1(d)(2). Thus, the definition of compensation from which elective contributions may be made is not required to satisfy the nondiscrimination requirement of § 1.414(s)-1(d)(3).

Good news! With doctors, it's usually they didn't remember getting it back in April and are signing it now LOL.

I might be dating myself but it seems when I first started out there was no hours requirement for anything less than a year of service but my memory could be failing me!

The Prevailing Wage contribution will removed your "deemed not Top-Heavy" exemption.

Agreed, and unfortunately happens too frequently.

A provision of the kind BG5150 quoted is in the cycle 3 IRS-preapproved documents of a few of those big publishers. Perhaps some of them might see this discussion, recognize an ambiguity in the text, and internally file a reminder—for the next cycle—to write something to answer the question BG5150 asked.

I just don't understand why people intentionally create hardships for themselves and others.

Agreed 100%. I did have one client once who refused to allow me to file one. They were a CPA firm and wanted to always rely on their own tax extension.

Too bad the actuarial costs for a second plan just for the pizza folks would probably outweigh the savings in PBGC premiums by not covering the doctor's office. Now please tell us the doctor's specialty is as a heart surgeon, selling pizzas on the side! Bonus points if one is in the building next door.

That is what we like to see as well.

Well, assuming no weird gotcha provisions like this being a 2/28 plan year end with a 10/31 tax year and no extension on their return, or that their 404 deduction max is only 50,000... Then this should be fine. (Would this pop up on your radar if the 700K and 300K had been done via separate checks?) I think as long as the sponsor designates the amount by year - that should be part of it.

Problems? Who is doing the "assigning"? Minimums? Maximums? Corporate resolution? As always, put on your consulting hat and ask the other questions: what is going on? what are you trying to accomplish?