Leaderboard

And to help discern the meaning of, or find support for an interpretation of, § 414(m)(5), consider the Conference Committee Report on the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. Many judges now disfavor legislative history as a way to interpret an enacted text. Yet, for older statutes, especially tax legislation, it can be a useful source of background information. A staff explanation about Congress’s reason for legislating (even if partly or wholly imagined) can suggest useful clues to interpret the enacted text.

Andy - Yes, without having the pressures of a work schedule, I now attend morning Mass. And taught myself how to play the psaltery, so they even get a little extra music for the morning. Wonderful instrument, wish I had discovered it earlier. I seem to recall one of the questions I worked into the Nondiscrimination answer book went something like "Andy's Heart Nut Company..." May God grant you many years of wonderful retirement.

The plan’s administrator might read carefully the plan’s governing documents to discern how much discretionary authority the administrator has not only to interpret the plan’s provisions but also to interpret a participant’s beneficiary designation and to make discretionary findings of fact.

I somewhat agree. I think for 2024 they would still have the quarterly deposit requirement on the match for 2024, but that this amendment would not be a cutting anyone's benefit as it's making sure everyone gets the annual safe harbor match so I think the amendment is allowable if they follow the deposit timing requirements of the per payroll match rules.

First thing - does your plan sponsor actually pay those types of wages such that you "need" to account for it? If so, then you then will have to decide (if the plan doesn't do that for you) how 414s comp will be defined for your testing. Sounds like it may not be allocation-eligible compensation, but could still need to be part of your testing compensation.

Just be careful to distinguish between the ADP safe harbor match, and the ACP safe harbor for discretionary matching.

Sounds like question for an ERISA attorney since the then management regs were proposed in 1987 with no reliance and withdrawn in 1993 as though they had never been issued. I'm sure they'll get around to updating them "soon".