Leaderboard

I am not aware of any specific guidance with respect to the EACA extended testing window. I understand that the plan can choose to exclude LTPT employees from ADP/ACP testing which aligns with the idea that the LTPT group is like a plan unto itself.

Short Answer: Yes, a mid-year change to the safe harbor generally requires 30 days notice, and accrues through that date. In addition to the amendment (which would be accomplished with the update onto the restated doc). Long Answer: what provisions are unnecessary? Is the Safe Harbor NHCE only? Are you wanting to change the EACA and cross-testing as well? He has a solok. The fact that it has provisions he might not use doesn't make it not a solo k . If the only two people eligible are him and his spouse, that's a owner only plan. Doesn't matter what the document is marketed as. Solo K is a marketing term, not a technical term. How is everything max out already based on 25% of W-2? Most people don't have final W-2 wages until December? are they at 415 limits for the year? Individual grouping (the cross testing) is super handy if the deposits don't occur exactly pro-rata. As long as testing passes they can be differing %. I'm guessing the EACA was put in for the tax credit, even if its never used. Hopefully the service requirement is 1 year, I've seen way too many employers think they will never hire someone and they do and that person is immediately eligible because that's how the plan is written. Having safe harbor to NHCE only also tends to help with this just in case it happens.

It will be interesting to see how the IRS reacts to cases where plans do not allow LTPT employees to start deferring come 1/1/2024. Given the drumbeat about LTPT since SECURE 1.0 and the additional emphasis on LTPT in SECURE 2.0, I imagine the IRS may be less tolerant if a plan is not ready. If we look at the correction options, the option available to plans with Auto Enrollment could allow a calendar-year plan to start deferrals as late as 10/15/2025 for deferrals that should have started in calendar year 2024. If the LTPT employees are not eligible for a match, there would be no penalty. I expect that this will not be acceptable and the IRS will reason that the LTPT rules cannot use this correction method if the AE provisions are not available to the LTPT employees. Some of the other correction methods will encounter similar issues where the logic behind the correction method does not hold up well for part-time employees. For example, the first 3-months rule and brief exclusion rule are predicated on an employee being able to make deferrals from future paychecks in an amount that would make up for the missed deferral opportunity. The underlying assumption is an employee will have recurring paychecks with relatively equal amounts of pay which is not the case for part-time employees. My guess is the IRS will hold plans accountable to a 50% QNEC correction option and maybe, just maybe, would consider something less. The challenge here will be determining 50% of what. If IRS does not recognize the LTPT deferrals as part of an AE plan, then it doesn't make sense to use the AE default percentage. Since the plan may not have a history of deferrals for LTPT employees, it doesn't make sense to use the NHCE ADP percentage. Another overall challenge is documenting that each individual LTPT was informed of their eligibility to defer and made a decision about deferring. The first part of the challenge is identifying who among all of the part-time employees is eligible to defer as an LTPT employee. The next part is getting information into the possession of each LTPT employee in time to begin deferring upon becoming eligible. Many will not have corporate email accounts, and many also will not be actively working when the communications are sent out. The third challenge - assuming that the participation rate will be lower than for non-LTPT employees - dealing with a large number of no-responses. Just some rambling thoughts. Is everybody ready to rock and roll?!?

Sounds like you should check the plan's definition for compensation. It's probably just like when someone new starts being eligible for a plan on July 1, the document may or may not to include pre-participation compensation for plan purposes. This is similar inasmuch as the employee's job classification makes him ineligible at various points, so the document will tell you whether to include "only as a participant" wages or not.