Leaderboard

Unless the plan is written poorly, the a17 limit is just applied when tested at the end of the year. Also, the 402g limit is likely to put the cap on any match far ahead of a compensation limit.

I don't think the example you posted uses the word "first", it just say's "up to". The below paragraph from the preamble to the 415 regs is what I have relied on when this question comes up. You are not required to count compensation on a FIFO type accounting basis. (unless your document says so) https://www.federalregister.gov/d/E7-5750/p-111 "As noted above, the final regulations provide that a plan cannot take into account compensation in excess of the section 401(a)(17) limit. In addition, the final regulations provide that elective deferrals can only be made from compensation as defined in section 415(c)(3). However, in applying these two rules, a plan is not required to determine a participant's compensation on the basis of the earliest payments of compensation during a year."

If you are at $0, and pass all testing you don't need gateway for that employee. Once an NHCE gets any employer allocation, even just $1, they need to get gateway. So yeah that employee need gateway. I'm not sure why you think profit sharing doesn't trigger gateway. Any non-match employer allocation will trigger a gateway in most plans like this. That is safe harbor non-elective, profit sharing, and reallocation of forfeitures being the most common. There are some general test exceptions to gateway in the regs but it doesn't sound like your plan design meets any of those exceptions.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-21-30.pdf https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-23-43.pdf See Rev Proc 2021-30 section 6.06 for correction of excess. See Rev Proc 2023-43 for expnaded guidance to see if you are eligible for self correction r need VCP.

The issue of reimbursing participants affected by a Market Value Adjustment (MVA) triggered by an early termination of an insurance contract was address in Private Letter Ruling 200404050. The conclusion was the MVA reimbursement is not a contribution and is not considered 401(a)(4) or 415. This interpretation also is consistent with Revenue Ruling 2002-45 which addressed "restorative payments" and concludes these are not contributions or considered for 401(a)(4) or 415. Whether or not forfeitures can be used top reimburse participants depends upon the terms of the plan document regarding the use of forfeitures. The plan's ability to use of forfeitures increasingly has come under scrutiny, and we have seen an increasing need for the plan to specify possible uses of forfeitures. In other words, since the MVA reimbursement is not a contribution, having a plan provision that says it can be used as a contribution likely will not permit the use of forfeitures here. None of the pre-approved documents that I have seen do not have language that explicitly says forfeitures can be used to make corrective allocations. I suggest consulting ERISA legal counsel for advice before the plan moves forward with using forfeitures to cover the MVA.

If an author of a book partly AI-generated copied, even temporarily for the generative software, others’ works, one wonders about copyright infringement. Those who understand authors’ and publishers’ efforts might not support a book that infringes or otherwise harms an author’s economic, or even moral, rights.

There is a distinction between late deposits and crediting contributions to the wrong participant. Late deposits are tied to the company not timely transferring participant money to the trust. When looking at the payroll-by-payroll funding, if at anytime there was a shortfall, then that is a late deposit. If there were crediting of contributions to participants so that at times some participants were underfunded and and at times some participants were overfunded, then not only should the correct total contributions be credited correctly, but also that related investment earnings should be credited correctly. This may require funding if there is a net shortfall. Don't forget to look at participants who were affected by this mess and who have taken distributions from the plan. This definitely is not a trivial exercise and consider having the client sign an engagement letter prior to starting work.

I think like you, I am always hesistant to give anyone, employer or employee, any discretion under 409A. There isn't an issue regarding implicating the change in election rules because, from your facts, this involves an acceleration of the payment and not a delay. Under the structure of the change, the employer believes or has been advised that the at least 12 month delay in payment after an election coupled with the forfeiture if resign within that period constitutes a substantial risk of forfeiture for the short term deferral rules. This appears reasonable but it is not without risk. This goes back to the question under section 83 of how long must a service period be for purpose of this rule. Most think a year is reasonable but for many, many years conservative practitioners point to a two-year period as alluded to in the section 83 regs. This two-year period has been cited in several PLRs issued under 457 (e.g., 9211037). IRS personnel speaking at a conference I attended several years ago stated that (in his opinion, of course) the two-year rule was a safe-harbor and not necessarily a minimum. The PLR I parenthetically cite ruled benefits in a 457f plan vested immediately because the service period was less than two years. So there is a possibility the IRS might not agree on the 12 month period (also, the courts might not either... there is a tax court case out there involving a 12-month resale restriction on some type of property (not a service requirement) where the court held the 12-month period was relatively short and not substantial... people point to that case as support for this two-year rule... not sure if it really applies but its there). Also, the 12-month period must be for actual work and perhaps not some consultancy period (not a sure loser but a facts and circumstances issue) or where they use vacation for a significant period. My recollection was that the actual work requirement was problematic under some rulings.

Austin - don't be ashamed think it was Kelsey Mayo (ARA) who mentioned in an article.

I am not ashamed to admit I did not make it to page 63 😂😂😂