Leaderboard

I think you can still exclude John Doe moving forward because you're not excluding him based on his service (instead his job category). Even if you want to keep him in, and exclude only future cashiers, generally we'd write the exclusion as something like "All cashiers hired on or after xx/xx/xxxx."

Building on Peter's excellent point, a plan document can include a provision dealing with a particular aspect of plan administration, including paying the money to a guardian, trustee, parent, grandparent or an UTMA custodian, to name a few. To the extent the plan document contains a provision which is not contrary to ERISA and is meant to facilitate plan administration, it can be accorded status similar to that of ERISA in the sense that it could preempt state law. While the typical plan document allows a responsible person to act for the minor beneficiary, an atypical plan provision can do more to facilitate the administration of a benefit in such case.

Eligibility is not a protected benefit. So if they wanted to amend the Plan to exclude all cashiers going forward past/present/future you can do that. It doesn't change the distribution rules for for the employee. They are still subject to the plan terms, they continue to accrue vesting service, they just don't get future contributions. Two caveats, 1st you can't cut back a benefit they have already earned a right to, so if you are trying to exclude a current cashier who has already satisfied the allocation condition for 2025, you couldn't make it effective for them until 2026. 2nd those folks still go into your nondiscrimination tests, they are just no considered "not benefiting" so if you exclude too many NHCEs you can run into testing problems.

DM = "direct message", some folks use "PM" = "private message" Click on the individual's user name in any post or reply; you'll land on their profile. To the right of their username (usually about mid-screen), you should see a blue button that says "Message" -- click on that, and you'll be able to send them a private message. If/when they reply, you should see a notification -- look to the top right of the page; to the left of your user name, you'll see an envelope. A badge should appear there if you have any unread messages. You can set your profile to receive an email whenever a DM is sent to you: Click on your user name (top right) => Account Settings => Notifications (at the right, on the "Overview" tab)

Generally, that will be the case. Under IRC 413(c), all service with all adopting employers in a MEP must be recognized. So, you must apply the eligibility provisions of Company B's plan. If the plan requires a YOS to enter and the person had a YOS while working for Company A, then the person enters on date of hire with Company B (assuming no class exclusion applies). The same approach would be used when applying the LTPT employee rules (assuming it's a 401(k) plan).

Don’t assume a State’s law applies. If ERISA governs the employment-based retirement plan, ERISA supersedes and preempts States’ laws. If ERISA governs, a plan’s administrator administers the plan according to its governing documents. A typical plan document states provisions for recognizing a natural or appointed conservator, natural or appointed guardian, UTMA custodian, or other fiduciary to act for a minor. A plan’s administrator might, in some circumstances, consider a State’s law or States’ laws to form a finding about whether a person is empowered to act for the minor. When a death benefit is a small amount, a plan’s administrator might prudently form some risk-tolerant practical decisions. The administrator’s focus is on whether it is dealing with a satisfactory claimant and payee. That fiduciary of the minor sorts out what is or isn’t proper, and is or isn’t prudent, about a rollover to an IRA or a transfer into a trust or UTMA account. This is not advice to anyone.

No legal expert, but I believe there may be a need to clarify whether such "guardian" is responsible for the minor's person or the minor's estate.

Yes, if this was a taxable entity and that limit applied, all employer contributions and all employees eligible for such would be considered for the 25% deduction limit. No, 404 does not apply.

IRC Section 401(a) is the section of the tax code that applies generally to all tax-qualified retirement plans, whether defined benefit pension or defined contribution plans. The answers to your questions are all "it depends" on the type of plan and its particular provisions. Then there are many other code sections that apply to certain types of plans or plan provisions. What you're asking is basically for an introduction to tax-qualified retirement plans course, which is too voluminous for this forum.

The times I have seen this the legal guardian can set up an IRA for the minor.

Based on IRS guidance, the plan sponsor should transfer the forfeited employer contribution plus related earnings to an unallocated plan account. This amount would then be used to reduce employer contributions in subsequent periods. This sounds simple but there is a complication. In determining how to use the excess contribution, the IRS has stated to us during an audit where this issue came up, the timing of the actual deposits of the contributions is relevant. Though in your case the contributions were for 2024, you must determine when those amounts were actually physically deposited. For example, were they funded with each payroll period in 2024 or in part or all after the end of the year. Even if per payroll period, it is possible the amount for the final December payroll was contributed in 2025. The IRS stated that amounts physically deposited in one year can be allocated to that year and earlier years but cannot be allocated to a later year. They said that in their view if done differently there is a danger that the plan sponsor would be accelerating deposits into an earlier year and possibly getting a larger tax deduction. (Note that our specific issue on that audit was on a much broader scale and not with respect to just one employee and our client funded the match on a quarterly basis with the final quarter's contribution being deposited after the end of that quarter in the next year.) So, in your case, if all of the excess amounts were deposited in 2025, there is no issue. The amounts could be used to reduce employer contributions in 2025 or 2026 (forfeited in 2025 and thus can be used in 2025 or 2026). However, if some or all of the excess amounts were deposited in 2024, you must look at the Plan document to see what alternatives are available. That is, what other matches or employer contributions could be made to participants under the terms of the Plan that can be funded with those excess amounts deposited in 2024. E.g., an additional match on top of the safe harbor or a profit sharing contribution. In my client's case the amounts were significant enough to allow them to provide a small (albeit very small) profit sharing contribution to all participants. One alternative the IRS would have permitted our client to implement (but the client opted not to) was to simply allocate those amounts to the NHCEs as a QNEC. Since the amount here is so small, that seems like the most practical solution. As regards a mistake of fact, quoting IRS Private Letter Ruling (PLR) 9144041: Mistake of fact is fairly limited. In general, a misplaced decimal point, an incorrectly written check, or an error in doing a calculation are examples of situations that could be construed as constituting a mistake of fact. What an employer presumed or assumed is not a mistake of fact. In my experience, there are very, very few mistakes of fact. Also, unallocated suspense account amounts are only to be used to fund employer contributions (and not to be used for plan expenses). See EPCRS Rev. Proc. 2021-30. I want to reiterate my sign off below...