Leaderboard

Yes.

Check the document, but that prior service is going to count and I don't think you can delay a re-hire's participation on entry dates, usually it's immediate. Even if you are able to exclude until after a YOS using rule of parity, participation (other than deferrals) is retroactive so you're in the same boat. Two years eligibility doesn't help either. If they never had a plan until now, maybe it's different, but I don't think so.

Has a DB plan and wants to contribute more than 6% to the DC. With 401(k) they can contribute 401(k) limit plus 6% employer contribution.

mega back door roth, if there is a db plan

Actually, SECURE (1.0) updated the minimum age to 72, but did not contain any language about updating the life expectancy tables. The tables updates were done by IRS regulations proposed in November 2020 (and finalized in late February 2022). Again, SECURE 2.0 just updates the minimum age to 73, but does not update the life expectancy tables. My guess is that IRS is not planning another update immediately to the life expectancy tables, but if they are planning to update the tables it would be announced well ahead of time and not take effect before 2024 at the earliest. ..... Jeff

FWIW I have the opinion of a very well known pension guru that although you can never guarantee the IRS would agree with it, it should be reasonable to assume that the last day / 1,000 hour rules are reasonable business classifications. They also agreed that if we arbitrarily brought in one of them to pass a rate group (not to pass the ratio percentage test) that that would blow that position up and average benefits for coverage would not be available.

The past service counts even though it's before the effective date of the plan. (Not like vesting where you can often ignore pre-plan years.) What about using the top-paid group election to move some of the non-owner docs into the NHCE group?

Maybe I'm being dense but I don't see how you can exclude her. She has 10 years of service and will be eligible. Even if you could keep her out under some reason like the the 1 year hold out (which I don't think you can because you said she doesn't even have a BIS) you'd have problems in 401(k) since the entry would be retro active and how do you go back and retro actively let her do 401(k)?

2015 COULD have been it. It was one of the mid-year conferences, not the annual. I remember it was in Philly that year. (I barely remember it with all the drink tickets people gave me, lol.) But the question you cited was very similar to the one I posed. The panel pretty much said they believed if everyone who didn't get a contribution was because of that rule, then it was a valid business decision and you could use the ABT.

Because there's nothing to amend in the document. The last day/1000 hours are imposed by the sponsor, not the document.

Secure 1.0 updated the tables but there was no additional change to the tables in Secure 2.0 that I'm aware of and I haven't seen seen any mention of a table change in any write-up on Secure 2.0 or webcast I've sat in on.

If there is simply a merger, yes. The “original plan” is subsumed into the merged plan. As Bri suggests, the transaction can be designed differently with different outcomes.

I'd say yes, presuming the merger documents address their and all the old plan's participants' assets. (Transferred, not rolled over, semantically speaking.)

No, just follow the DOL program, no separate action is needed under EPCRS.