Leaderboard

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.

The question that Plan Doc is asking is not necessarily a 410(b) issue, although it is related. Rather, the issue is whether the eligibility classification (exclusion) for interns passes muster under 410(a). The argument being that the exclusion of interns could be seen as an indirect exclusion based on hours worked, which violates 410(a). I believe that the failsafe language you are referring to does work according to the IRS. Furthermore, I don't see how different eligibility criteria presents a BRF problem under 401(a)(4). If there is a "problem" with different eligibility criteria (assuming the criteria passes 410(a), then it will be "caught" under 410(b), not 401(a)(4) BRF.

Not saying this is or is not legit, but minor children often have bona fide work in their parent's businesses (and not just sneaker factories in southeast Asia). I have seen one-year-olds on payroll as they appear in marketing materials and TV ads. They could be self-employed, think maybe the E-Trade baby/toddler - sure hope the little dude has a Roth IRA or 401(k)! - so why not an employee? Sure, there are child labor laws, and a red-flag warning that something "funny" is going on would be a plan design with 1000-hour YOS eligibility that somehow the 10-year-old satisfied but other employees did not. But agree you should want and get some assurance, whether from CPA and/or attorney.