Leaderboard

Interesting. The only distinction I see is that 403(b)(10) and 457(d)(2) separately and affirmatively impose the 401(a)(9) rules on those plan types by reference, whereas 402A does not contain a separate provision affirmatively imposing the 401(a)(9) rules on designated Roth accounts. To the extent that 401(a)(9) applies to 402A Roth accounts, it's only because the "qualified Roth contribution program" rules apply to all "applicable retirements plans," which includes a 401(a)-qualified plan (and 403(b) and 457(b) plan) under 402A(e)(1). In other words, if 402A itself had a provision like 403(b)(10) and 457(d)(2) that separately and affirmatively imposed the 401(a)(9) rules, perhaps the SECURE 2.0 provision would have also included a "notwithstanding" for that subsection too. As it reads now, though, the new provision exempts "any designated Roth account," which I think by definition should be read to include a Roth 401(k) subaccount.

IMHO, you should never combine union and nonunion plans. There are a number of reasons for this position, but I focus on one. Union plans are frequently subject to review and adjustment to reflect the collective bargaining. You would be putting a program, the plan as applied to nonunion employees, within the negotiations with the union. This can cause several problems, not just related to levels of benefits which of course would be subject to scrutiny. I suggest the better question is why would you want to combine these plans, putting your nonunion benefits in the middle of what might be adversarial negotiations. You have different populations, with different agendas. Combining plans seems to just be asking for trouble.

I would consider it a mistake (which violates exclusive benefit rule) and have the plan return the rollover to it's source. It shouldn't count for any purposes under the plan and should be corrected as soon as possible, in my opinion.

Agree with all prior comments. Big picture: the successor plan rules are in place so a plan sponsor could not circumvent the in-service withdrawal rules by terminating its 401(k) plan, distributing assets and then starting another 401(k) plan in the near term. If none of the events resulted in an in-service pre-59.5 distribution of assets then I don't think you have any successor plan issues but it certainly doesn't hurt to get legal opinion.

Your real mistake was assuming that an IRS form with a 11-2022 revision date would actually have updated dates in the form rather than dates from a decade ago.

If you met the §410(b)(6)(C) transition rules (I think that's the correct cite), and your documents allow you can test them separately for 2022 and 2023 under the transition rules.

Gateway must go to NHCEs who receive non-match employer contribution. TH Minimum must go to Non-Key who qualify (1000 Hrs in DB, last day in DC) Assuming the Plan Document allows the flexibility you can always discriminate against one HCE over another.

I'll obviously recommend checking for sure with an ERISA lawyer, but I'm at least hopeful for you, knowing that the first plan hasn't actually gone away.

Don't be so hard on yourself! We're all (or at least I am) getting pretty frazzled about now, and when adding 2 + 2 the sum is coming up as a bushel of potatoes, or something similar. P.S. last time I renewed in May. When I never got my renewal in the mail, I contacted them. They were very nice, said they would send out a dupIicate. They sent out the duplicate just before Thanksgiving. But they were very nice, so no big deal.

Hi Bill, thank you. I believe it's because we use IDP formatted VS plan documents, and the amendment would be considered a narrative amendment (at least that's what we were told). The Roth 401k language would appear in many sections of the document and I'm guessing an amendment wouldn't accomplish adding the provision. Also, we were told that the amendment may have to refer to the secure act. They told us to hold off for now, until they receive more guidance which is what we expected. I will post under this thread once we hear back in case anyone else uses the same documents as us. Thank you again for your reply.

I am a complete IDIOT!!! I have no idea what I was thinking. I looked at it yesterday and again today and didn't catch that I was reading 2014 as 2024. Must have been a mind trick. Wow, I need a vacation :). Thank you so much for bringing this up. You could have been a lot more brutal in your reply :). I will renew now.

I am getting concerned that "we just won't have Roth" is sounding impermissible. Plans aren't required to have Roth, plans aren't required to have catch-ups, but some of the legal discourse (articles in the daily newsletter, for instance) seems to sound as though the IRS is mandating sponsors shoehorn them in nevertheless.

Isn't that the original definition of the cycle, so keep adding multiples of 3 years to it? My SSN ends in a 2, so my enrollment cycles have begun each of April 1 of 2013, 2016, 2019, and 2022. And so when I re-upped in spring 2022 last year I entered in my CE amounts from 2019, 2020, 2021.

Sounds like the intention was there but did Plan 1 actually formally terminate? Or did they just kinda switch everyone's new contributions to Plan 2 (the PEP) while Plan 1 stayed in a sort of limbo state?

That is our understanding as well. Absent the ability to make Roth deferrals, one cannot have Roth catch-ups - despite being mandated by Secure 2.0 for some people. We've raised this issue in requests for guidance through various trades - as the only other option for plan sponsors that don't want Roth generally, is to eliminate catch-ups completely.

That's the same one I was looking at. It says April 1, 2014, not 2024.

Are you sure that's what it says? I'm a "6" so I'm in the same enrollment cycle, and my ERPA card says it expires September 30, 2023, (it was issued in 2020) so I'm renewing now, using 2020, 2021, and 2022 credits. I'm looking at the same 8554 you are, and I don't see where it says that my next renewal is 4/1/24. I've always maintained that passing the tests is easier than figuring out these mentally arthritic renewal cycles...

Yes, I believe all plans will have to be amended to allow for Roth. But I don't understand why you would lose reliance by amending?

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 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.

Sure on termination the majority owners could waiver benefits, forego benefits, take a hair cut, whatever you want to call it. However IRS stated position, the Internal Revenue Code, and Treasury Regs concerning minimum funding rules are all consistent in the rules required in that owners are not allowed to forego benefits to reduce minimum funding requirements. Even if you have had the IRS agree to that in specific cases, it's not something you can rely upon under the law.