Leaderboard

An employer terminating participation in a MEP or PEP does not constitute a distributable event under the 401(k) distribution rules -- no employee has terminated employment with the employer, and the plan, itself is not terminated. The departing employer should get a spin-off of the plan benefits from the first MEP (no, this is ot "automatic"), and then merge that into the MEP with the 2nd group ... or she can put the spinoff into a new 401(k) plan sponsored by her corporation, and then terminate that plan. This is probably one of the biggest disadvantages of MEP/PEPs -- the exit strategy is not a cakewalk.

well its too late for 2024 for deferrals and safe harbor..... what method does the plan use for profit sharing allocations? if everyone in their own group - does amending the compensation definition really change anything? Would they even pass §414(s) if the compensation exclusion was in place? Sometimes its hard to pass.

For governmental plans, a top lawyer is Carol Calhoun, a lead author of Governmental Plans Answer Book. https://www.venable.com/professionals/c/carol-v-calhoun

Have you reviewed the 8955-SSA on which their benefits were reported to confirm it is an error on SSA's end?

austin3515’s query and RatherBeGolfing’s information suggest yet another awkwardness about administering a plan (on this point, starting as soon as January 1, 2025) according to one’s assumptions about the text of a document to be made years later. Imagine austin3515’s client in 2025 and 2026 allows age 50 catch-up, but does not allow age 60-63 catch-up. Imagine the plan sponsor later finds that, in the IRS-preapproved documents set, the adoption agreement form’s only choice for catch-ups is both or neither. Imagine it’s then too late and impractical for austin3515 and the client to switch to a different vendor’s IRS-preapproved documents that allow a user to specify age 50 catch-up without age 60-63 catch-up. Imagine the plan sponsor signs document that provide both kinds of catch-ups. Might someone say the plan’s administrator in 2025 and 2026 failed to administer the plan according to the remedially-amended written plan? Or might someone say the plan’s operation was within the administrator’s reasonable assumption about what the remedially-amended plan would provide? Or might someone say the provision for allowing both kinds of catch-ups is not retroactive? How many legal fictions does the remedial-amendment regime call for?