Leaderboard

Stated differently, the definition of compensation used for deferrals only has to be reasonable unless it's applying the default % under a QACA. As CuseFan pointed out, this may be an operational issue depending on how the plan defines compensation for deferral purposes. If the plan excludes bonuses for deferral purposes, then there is no operational error, even if the definition of comp for that purpose doesn't satisfy 414(s). Of course you must use a definition of compensation that satisfies 414(s) for ADP testing purposes, but that's a separate issue.

A plan that has an ADP safe harbor match can also permit a discretionary ACP safe harbor match. You will need to read the document to see if yours does. Also see my edit to my earlier comment.

LOL... 99.99% bad, .01% good 🤣

So austin3515 finds something to like in the long-term-part-time provision?!

Do your actual testing with a definition that does pass 414(s) then, even if the allocations were done with the comp definition you were given. If you can pass with gross 415 pay, for instance since that passes 414(s), then you should be in the clear.

Are they getting SHNE? If so, they have to get gateway also.

I suggest the correct way to look at it is a Schedule R is required whenever a plan must report information on any line on the form. The Schedule R has an array of topics that apply to specific types of plans or to specific circumstances. It is possible for a Form 5500 not to be required to attach a Schedule R, but this has become unlikely. The requirement to report the opinion letter number for a pre-approved plan will by itself cause the vast majority of plans to have to attach a Schedule R.

I think I did it. Here is what I did.... - Had to give it to all who deferred, even if they were not employed on the last day of the plan year (same as a regular ADP SH Match) - It was a "discretionary" ACP Match (SH) - It was a 100% match of whatever % I needed to eat up the $4300 overage (0.373%) I ran all my tests and came through with a Pass!

There are very limited circumstances under which a contribution may be returned to the company. Unless the $4,300 was the result of a minor typographical or arithmetic error, I wouldn't even consider it. As you suggested, the excess could (should) be allocated under the plan's allocation formula. Does the plan say that participants will have the right to direct the investment of 100% of their account? If yes, then I don't see how you could allocate amounts for those 5 participants to a pooled account. If no, then you could do it under the terms of the plan, but you still have to be aware of nondiscrimination testing. The right to direct investment is a benefit, right or feature that has to be available to a nondiscriminatory section of plan participants. If 100% of HCEs have the right to direct their investments but only 50% of NHCEs do (for example) then you might have a problem. Edit: Upon further consideration, I think there's a bigger problem, which is that only participants who have deferred in the past would have the right to direct their investments, which would be a violation of the contingent benefit rule. So I would not advise this approach. If you really want to use a pooled account, I would recommend putting everyone's profit sharing into it, not just the people who don't already have brokerage accounts set up. Does the plan allow a discretionary match in addition to the safe harbor match? If the plan was written well, it should allow a discretionary ACP safe harbor match in addition to the ADP safe harbor match. If you can allocate the excess as an ACP safe harbor match, that might be the easiest thing to do in this situation. Be aware that the plan probably has a notice requirement when a discretionary match is made.

Albert Feuer (718) 263-9874 Totally a New Yorker, 45 years’ experience Top-rated https://www.martindale.com/attorney/albert-feuer-416689/ While high-educated and deeply knowledgeable, he is pleasantly down-to-earth.

Is the purpose of these resolutions solely to document a plan sponsor's choices for LTPT employees receiving other contribution types in addition to 401(k) deferrals? Or, is the purpose to have a resolution adopting an interim plan amendment? Either way, I think it is a bad idea for a plan to say LTPTs get the other contribution types by default unless the sponsor elects otherwise. If the plan sponsor felt before SECURE some part-time employess should get the other contributions, why did they exclude them before there were LTPT rules?

Notice 2024-2 has this new term "pre-enactment qualified CODA". I don't see how a PS-only plan that does not yet have a qualified CODA could be considered a pre-enactment qualified CODA. Here is the Q&A from Notice 2024-2: Q. A-1: When is a qualified CODA established for purposes of determining whether the qualified CODA is excepted under section 414A(c)(2)(A)(i) of the Code from the requirements related to automatic enrollment (that is, whether the qualified CODA is a pre-enactment qualified CODA)? A. A-1: For purposes of section 414A(c)(2)(A)(i), a qualified CODA is established on the date plan terms providing for the CODA are adopted initially. This is the case even if the plan terms providing for the CODA are effective after the adoption date. For example, if an employer adopted a plan that included a qualified CODA on October 3, 2022, with an effective date of January 1, 2023, then the qualified CODA would have been established on October 3, 2022 (that is, before December 29, 2022), even though the qualified CODA was not effective until after December 29, 2022.

You are correct. In order to satisfy the requirements of 1.401(a)(4)-11(g) (and 1.401(a)(26)-7(c), it's oft-ignored sibling), the amendment must pass coverage and nondiscrimination testing on its own. The way to bring in the HCE (presumably with a 0.5% accrual) under a retro amendment would be to also increase accruals for enough NHCEs to pass the ratio percentage test in the same amendment, also with 0.5% accruals for each (on top of whatever they earned in the plan under the base formula). This issue will largely go away next year when SECURE 2.0 retro amendments become available.

The Relius document has a section that you can choose to exclude the seasonal, part time, temporary, etc.... however, you must take into consideration that if they work 1000 hours the employee would become eligible. this is in addition to the 90 days entry requirement. I don't know what document you are using but read it. maybe you have a similar available option. I feel you might be too late to implement this year.

Yeah the rollout of their new platform has been less than stellar to be kind about it.

Yes, Nationwide went to a new platform in mid-Jan. this year. Yes, it's been a challenge. But no it shouldn't take weeks. Days maybe. The employee should check with NW for a status. Not much you can do about the market though.