Leaderboard

There is no change to the question asking about the number of active participants. There is a new line item (6g(1) on the 5500, 5c(1) on the 5500-SF) which asks about the number of participants with account balances at the beginning of the year, and that new item is the one used to determine whether the plan is required to have an audit.

Also, you don't fully describe the error, in particular the errant contribution. If the error was not made, would that have resulted in more of a contribution allocated to other participants (we contributed $X to be allocated to those eligible based on pay) or simply would that contribution amount not been made at all (we wanted to contribute X% of pay for those eligible)? If the former, then the defect likely warrants correction where someone (employer, TPA, shared) makes the plan whole by funding, and then such is allocated. If the latter, participants have not been harmed, this is simply an inadvertent error the plan sponsor can choose not to recover.

Well the DB plan has a minimum required contribution which may be larger that the Schedule C net income. In that case your income for the year is $0 (probably) and you may have a nondeductible required contribution to the Plan. Depending on when it's deposited you might be able to kick the can into next year by designating different years for MRC and deduction.

Does the plan use the rule to switch the eligibility computation period to the plan year?

In addition, Timing is important: Very likely, any change that applies would take effect at the beginning of the next plan year. You should ask your HR rep (assuming that exists) what changes might apply and when. And take into account that some plans require participants who are no longer employed to begin their payment (in whatever form they choose) at Normal Retirement Date (often, age 65) so that your proposed delay may not be permissible under the Plan provisions.

That is too plan specific to be answered on a general answer board like this. You need to read the plan documents and speak to your former HR or the 401(k) record keeper.

Have you read the Summary Plan Description (SPD)?

1. you can't make it more restrictive retroactively. We are past 2/1/2024 so that ship has sailed. Pick a date in the future. And depending on the circumstances, an amendment can make someone no longer eligible, but that's a whole other conversation. 2. to apply or not apply to existing employees depends on how the amendment and document is written. I've seen it done both ways.

Why? Because that’s the solution.

Here's another laugher. Got a letter last week saying, "we need another 60 days to review." They then say you can call if you want to, but of course they don't list a number anywhere on the letter. I wouldn't bother calling anyway - that's a one-way ticket to Frustration Junction in Obfuscation Land. And of course, they can decide, at the end of 60 days, to delay again, or ask for "more information" which they then have 45 days to review, etc., etc. Our tax dollars at work!!! Gotta love it...