Leaderboard

You know the ACP test, run that as usual. The rate of match itself is a BRF (benefit, right, or feature). See Treasury Regulation 1.401(a)(4)-4. The plan’s BRFs pass 401(a)(4) if they are available to nondiscriminatory groups. There’s both current availability and effective availability to satisfy. To satisfy current availability, look at the ratio of NHCEs available to receive that rate of match (or better) divided by all NHCEs who can get any match, regardless of what they deferred. Do the same for the HCEs at that same rate of match. Now divide the NHCE fraction by the HCE fraction. Look up the safe harbor percent that would apply from 1.410(b)-4 (don’t worry about the average benefits test for BRF testing, that does not apply here). Now do it again for the next rate of match for the HCEs and NHCEs. For example, suppose all the HCEs have over ten years of service so the higher rate is available to all of them, whether they defer or not. The HCE ratio is 100%. Suppose only 1 of ten of the NHCEs have ten years so their fraction at this rate of match is only 10%. You have a test result of 10%/100%, or 10%. There is no safe harbor rate under 20.75% under 1.410(b)-4, so the higher match rate fails. If you’re within 9.5 months after the plan year end, look at 1.401(a)(4)-11(g)(3)(vi) and (vii) to fix the failure. For effective availability, subjectively decide if you think it’s nondiscriminatory and if the IRS would agree with you. No test of numbers. Good luck there. Alright, alright, if you pass current availability for multiple rates of match, then I would say it sure points us to a passing effective availability result as well. Hopefully that helps.

Perhaps, but it would certainly apply to a plan year beginning 8/1/2023. For a plan beginning its termination process today, I would not want to risk its qualification status on the termination being completed, including distribution of all assets, before 8/1/2023. Particularly if the plan is covered by PBGC.

There are a number of reasons why a recordkeeper might care about an employee's pay schedule. If the plan allows loans, and the recordkeeper produces the loan repayment schedule, that schedule would normally need to be aligned to the employee's pay dates. Some recordkeepers may provide missed contribution notifications to the employer, if an expected contribution is not received by a certain date.

Employee benefits for unions are collectively bargained and timing of the effective dates of changes to the union plan are tied to effective date of the bargaining agreement. That often differs from the effective dates of changes in the nonunion plan.

If the plan has a variable interest crediting rate, it will need to be amended for SECURE 2.0 sec. 348.

If the employer is relying on an IRS-preapproved plan document, it might be difficult, if not impossible, to accommodate different benefit structures for the union and non-union employees on a single document. Not just the safe harbor contributions (or lack thereof), but if there are any different eligibility or distribution options for the two groups. If there are different pay schedules (e.g. weekly for the union employees and semi-monthly for the office employees), the plan's recordkeeper or other service provider may struggle to correctly account for that difference within a single plan.

Plans still define, or need to define, IRS required beginning date per statute (in my opinion) regardless of whether the plan by its provisions (and administration) maintains an earlier required commencement date. For example, there are defined benefit plans that require commencement at normal retirement age (65) regardless of employment status but those documents are still required to have RMD provisions. And we had clients that desired to maintain 70 1/2 after SECURE, so we amended the statutory RMD requirements but maintained the earlier required commencement. The practical difference being if someone has available and elects a lump sum at a required commencement date before their statutory RBD age they can roll it all over rather than splitting into RMD and non-RMD pieces. And a plan sponsor might want to keep 70 1/2 to avoid actuarial increases between 70 1/2 and later commencement. For purposes of simplifying this discussion I left out the later retirement consideration. I also think the option available to the plan sponsor is retaining the prior commencement structure and foregoing the updated statutory structure (1.0 or 2.0), and an amendment would be required in either instance.

Draft your own, just need to update the RMD language effective 1/1/2023.

You don't have to stop HSA contributions upon reaching age 65. You won't lose HSA eligibility until you enroll in Medicare. Just keep in mind that Medicare Part A enrollment will be six months retroactive, so you'll have to account for that issue. Here's an overview https://www.newfront.com/blog/how-medicare-affects-hsa-eligibility General Rule: HSA Eligibility The general rule is that an individual must meet two requirements to be HSA-eligible (i.e., to be eligible to make or receive HSA contributions): Be covered by an HDHP; and Have no disqualifying coverage (generally any medical coverage that pays pre-deductible, including Medicare). HSA eligibility also requires that the individual cannot be claimed as a tax dependent by someone else. Medicare is Disqualifying Coverage Enrollment in any part of Medicare is disqualifying coverage that causes an individual to lose HSA eligibility. This means that an individual who is enrolled in Medicare Part A, Part B, Part C, Part D, or any combination thereof is not eligible to make or receive HSA contributions. Even enrollment in only the (generally premium-free) Medicare Part A hospital coverage blocks HSA eligibility. Individuals Who Are Age 65+ May Still Be HSA Eligible Medicare enrollment causes an individual to lose HSA eligibility. However, many employees age 65 and older delay enrollment in Medicare, and therefore may continue to be HSA-eligible. In other words, mere eligibility to enroll in Medicare has no effect on the individual’s HSA eligibility if the individual chooses not to enroll in any part of Medicare. The Medicare Part A Automatic Enrollment Trap: Individuals Receiving Social Security Retirement Benefits Individuals who are receiving Social Security retirement benefits are automatically enrolled in (premium-free) Medicare Part A hospital coverage with no opt-out permitted. Accordingly, any individual receiving Social Security retirement benefits is not HSA eligible by virtue of the automatic Medicare Part A enrollment. The Medicare Part A Retroactive Enrollment Trap: Six Months of Retroactive Coverage For individuals who delay enrolling in Medicare until after age 65, the Medicare Part A enrollment will be effective retroactively up to six months. This six-month retroactive enrollment in Medicare Part A will also block HSA eligibility retroactively for six months. Individuals have two options to address the retroactive Medicare Part A enrollment causing the retroactive loss of HSA eligibility: Plan Ahead: Stop making HSA contributions at least six months before applying for Medicare, and limit HSA contributions during that period to the prorated amount; or Correct Mistake: Work with the HSA custodian to take a corrective distribution of the excess contributions by the due date (including extensions) for filing the individual tax return (generally April 15, without extension). Example: Jose reaches age 65 in August 2018 but does not enroll in Medicare. Jose signs up for Social Security benefits on October 1, 2019, which automatically enrolls him in Medicare Part A retroactive to April 1, 2019. Result: Jose retroactively loses HSA eligibility as of April 2019—and therefore he can contribute only 3/12 of the HSA statutory limit for 2019 (plus 3/12 of the catch-up contribution). If he already contributed in excess of that limit, Jose will need to make a corrective distribution of the excess contributions by April 15, 2020 (assuming no extensions) to avoid a 6% excise tax. Slide summary: 2023 Newfront Medicare for Employers Guide

we all safeguard our industry, to the extent bad information is being promulgated, it should be traced and if possible re-educated. I've had clients/referral sources come to me with strange/bad ideas and been able to correct them before it went further. Other times I've read articles/trustee minutes/investment committee reports and asked our sales group to make contact and setup meetings with the author. If widespread it became a topic in our client/advisor newsletter. This just sounds like a misunderstanding/over-simplification of segregation, but it gains traction in this abrogated form then someone at NCEO, ASPPA, or ESOP Association should be made aware of the issue.

I also approve of dope slapping, in addition to slapping with a class action lawsuit.

Someone out there must be saying this. This is the 2nd time I have heard someone say, "I just heard I can freeze the value of the ESOP account to the value of the year they terminated" in about a week. And I doubt my client is coming here to get a 2nd opinion after I talked about segregation. I don't know who is doing this but I am prepared to slap them upside of the head. The replies capture the correct answer.

It looks like you are using the end of the year valuation date. If the valuation date was not changed in any of the four preceding years, you can change it to the first day of the Plan Year, i.e. 1/1/2022. If it's not enough to get your minimum contribution to $0, see Nate S' comment above.