Leaderboard

No. You check "Automatic Extension" in the same section.

A safe harbor match can not require hours in order to receive it on a year-by-year basis, but it can have a service requirement for initial eligibility. No, you can have different eligibility for deferrals and safe harbor match. The major consequence of this design is the loss of the top heavy exemption, as Bri noted earlier. Under this design you are technically doing an ADP test for the disaggregated portion of the plan covering otherwise excludable employees, since that group is not covered by the safe harbor match. It is unlikely that there would be any otherwise excludable HCEs, so that group should always pass the test automatically. But it's something to be aware of. No, you can have a service (hours or elapsed time) for initial eligibility for matching contributions, including safe harbor matching contributions. If your document uses a checkbox-style adoption agreement, there are probably options for this. A plan that consists solely of deferrals and matching contributions which satisfy the ADP and ACP safe harbors is exempt from top heavy. This is determined based on the contributions that are actually made to the plan on a year-by-year basis. A plan can permit non-elective contributions but will not lose its top heavy exemption unless non-elective contributions are actually made (or forfeitures allocated) in a given year. Likewise, making non-safe harbor matching contributions will also cause the plan to lose its top heavy exemption.

If I've had more than 15 plans in 25+ years where the trustees weren't just the owners or an executive committee (small businesses almost exclusively), I'd be surprised.

In my experience where a bank is involved, it is usually acting as a directed trustee/custodian. They limit their fiduciary duties substantially by having a contract that directs them to perform certain activities and specifies exactly how they are to be performed. The plan sponsor is usually the named administrator and trustee. The same is true for 3(16) Plan Administrators. Most have contracts and processes and procedures that limit what services they are performing and how they will be performed. I have very rarely seen a 3(16) named in the plan document, taking on the whole enchilada. I will say, the larger the plan the more likely they will have more fiduciaries in the mix.

I would respectfully disagree. A "simultaneous death" doesn't mean at the same time or even for the same reason. In some cases, a "simultaneous death" occurs even if there is a gap of up to 30 days, if the deaths were the result of a common cause (i.e. a car accident that kills one instantly, and the other lingers for weeks before dying of injuries received). In other cases, the cause of the second death is irrelevant, if the deaths occur in close proximity (sometime days separated). The bottom line is, each state has it's own simultaneous death statutes that will define whether or no a simultaneous death exists give the facts - and each determination is very fact specific.

Assuming it’s a PS source failure, usually it’s an -11g amendment OR the plan document has specific methods the plan has to follow.