I know the gateway for the combo plans is typically 7.5% (which can be split between 3% SH + 4.5% PS).  What happens if it's a Safe Harbor Match?  What type of Profit Sharing contribution do we have to include, because we're running into the 6% deductible contribution going over 6% to the eligible employees (less for the HCE)

Would SECURE Sec 301 apply if the overpayment was to an HCE?  Say an employer miscalculates an HCEs match and prior to discovering the error the HCE has terminated and already taken a distribution.  ACP passes so no corrective distributions were due.  Does the fact that the HCE is the only overpayment negate Sec 301, or can the employer allow the HCE to keep the overage assuming no other participants are affected?

Thank you.

Hi - I am speaking with someone who is hurting from having been taxed on a deemed distribution due to failure to an an installment by the end of the cure period. I don't think it can be corrected because payment was made after the cure period.  However, I think I can offer him some consolation by suggesting he repay the loan and make a Roth Conversion of the repaid balance.  There won't be tax on the conversion because he has "basis" in the funds (i.e., the money has already been taxed).  I am concerned however about whether there is a restriction against converting this type of after-tax money.  I can't think of a reason, but I am paranoid. (After all, I work in the pension industry.) 

The literature only speaks of tax-free conversion of  'after-tax contributions'.  Repaid deemed loans are after tax,  but they have a kind of moral taint for failure to repay a loan.  Does anyone think that this type of after-tax money cannot be converted to Roth?  Assume that payment was restored to original sources (e.g., Profit Sharing, Pre Tax Elective Deferrals, Rollover account), and assume the plan allows conversion of vested funds held in any account.  Any problems?

Thanks

An employer hires an employee in 2021 and pays a $10,000 signing bonus.  Two months after beginning employment, Employee enters 401(k) Plan.  In 2022, Employee terminates service and, under terms of employment contract, pays back sign on bonus by issuing a personal check in 2022.

Does this reduce that employees compensation in 2022 for purposes of Testing, if using the definition of Compensation under 414(s)?  I am inclined to say no, as you simply look at what the Employer paid the Employee during 2022.  Does this require new testing for 2021?

Small company has a 401k plan, 3% SHNE, pretty straightforward.  The company is in the construction business and often works on public projects.  The Department of Labor audited a job they had completed about 4 years ago and determined that the company had applied state-level prevailing wage parameters, but apparently there were federal monies included in the project, and as a result, the company should have used federal prevailing wage parameters.  The result is that the company will have to pay a few people who worked on that job some restitution, and it's required to be paid via W2 in the current year.  Most of these people no longer work for the company, though some were participants in the plan previously.  The company does have a 1-year break in service provision, but if those participants are excluded, the plan fails the 410b test in the current year.  So, the question is, how should the company should treat the SHNE contributions for these participants.  Amend the plan to include them in this year's SHNE?  Should they receive lost earnings going back to when the SHNE would have been paid had the earnings fallen in the year in which the original job occurred and thus SHNE would have been paid?  Any insight would be helpful.  Thank you!

I'm finding vague references to this and looking for guidance.  In-plan Roth conversions are allowed in the plan, but I've never had a participant ask me if they can convert their pre-tax Safe Harbor Match to Roth.  Anyone have any insight on this?  Thanks in advance!

Hi

Here is a new one for me.

401k plan with 3% NESH and PS provisions so no ADP testing required. This is combined with CB plan and tested together. (I only handle CB plus testing)

Just got the info for 2022.

HCE/owner and spouse, both exceeded 402(g) limits (changed payroll companies in mid-year and they did not pay attention to the deferrals). Refunding prior to 4/15/2023.

If ADP tested, the full amount would have been included, only for HCE's. Do not have any issues with the NHCE's.

How for ABPT? Based on 2022 limits (20,500) or full incorrect deferral (30,000)? Assume under age 50.

Thank you.

Client pays for LTD benefits to its employees by paying insurance premiums every month.  They are allowed to elect to treat the employer premiums as taxable so that if they were ever disabled their benefit would be tax free (at least I believe that is the arrangement).

In any event, the Plan uses W-2 wages and this election increases Box 1 federal wages on W-2.  So this election increases their 415 wages, correct?  Yes it would be a taxable fringe benefit, but curious if others agree it is part of 415 comp.

Since terminating plans are forced to amend for compliance even though "regular" plans have a greatly extended remedial amendment compliance period, seems like this may be a challenge. Coming up with a comprehensive plan termination amendment is quite a tough assignment. Any thoughts about how reasonable the IRS may be about a "good faith" plan termination SECURE 2.0 Amendment? I'd like to think that any "reasonable" attempt at such an amendment would be a case of, "Pass, Friend" without any minute scrutiny for perfection.

Just curious as to what most people do. In general, for plan allocation purposes, do most documents you see INCLUDE all or most categories of "post-severance comp" or EXCLUDE all or most categories of "post-severance comp"

FWIW most of the plans I see INCLUDE it. I'm reviewing a potential takeover where it is all excluded, which brought this question to mind.

A couple of questions:

1.   When restructuring do I have to an HCE in each component group?  As long as each group passes coverage, I don't think so, but hoping to verify.  I do understand that doing that may mean plan has to pass ratio percentage test at 70%.

2.  If each rate group in the component plans pass ratio at over 70%, do I have to pass the ABPT on the whole?  Normally I wouldn't look to the ABPT if every rate group is over 70%, but in this case the only reason that is happening is because I restructure. 

Thanks for any guidance.

An employer now may give a de minimis financial incentive to employees who elect § 401(k) contributions.

If that incentive is a “low-dollar gift card” some in Congress mentioned, an employer likely must tax-report on Form W-2 as taxable wages the gift card’s cash-equivalent amount.

What do BenefitsLink neighbors think about whether America’s payroll people are ready to take on that work?

Anyone not able to login to Relius ASP this morning (2/11/2023)?

Client has not paid withholding due on participant distribution for 2022.  Client received the 20% check from the financial instition, didn't ask anyone what check was for, and deposited into the business checking account.

As I was completing Form 945, asked client for dates paid and she tells me it hasn't been.

I have called the payment in with EFTPS before, I assume payments made online handled similarly, but 945 withholding.

Question is, do we need a separate PIN to make a 945 payment?

Accountant tells me the client pays all 941 through EFTPS; accountant has no idea how payments are made with 945, which I find incredible.

I feel like I've debated this several times already, but here goes... A 401k participant became eligible to enter the plan on 1/1, but didn't begin deferring until the next entry date, 7/1.  Is the plan sponsor required to true up the SHM for said participant based on his comp from 1/1-12/31?  Thanks.

Never mind.

deleted - never mind.

Would it be a problem under any federal law (e.g., IRC 401(a)(2) Exclusive Benefit Rule, IRC 503 prohibited transaction rules…) for a qualified 401(a) non-electing church plan to add a provision to its plan (and 501(a) trust agreement) to provide for indemnification of the board members and employees who administer the plan against liability (except in the cases of willful or wanton conduct, gross negligence, and gross malfeasance), with such indemnification to be payable from its plan assets. Assume that there are no state law issues to consider (focus is on federal law). Of course, since it’s a non-electing church plan, it is exempt from ERISA. Any specific or general thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Would it be a problem under any federal law (e.g., IRC 401(a)(2) Exclusive Benefit Rule, IRC 503 prohibited transaction rules…) for a qualified 401(a) governmental plan to add a provision to its plan (and 501(a) trust agreement) to provide for indemnification of the board members and employees who administer the plan against liability (except in the cases of willful or wanton conduct, gross negligence, and gross malfeasance), with such indemnification to be payable from its plan assets. Assume that there are no state law issues to consider (focus is on federal law). Of course, since it’s a governmental plan, it is exempt from ERISA. Any specific or general thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

A 501(c)(3) employer provides medical care as a health center.  It files Form 990 annually.  It has provided a copy of their 2015 IRS letter acknowledging they are a 501(c)(3) public charity. It has sponsored a 403(b) plan since 2003. 

Now they claim that they are also a governmental entity and therefore not required to file Form 5500 nor obtain a plan audit.  

Part of it's claim to governmental status is that they receive federal funding.  Additionally they are deemed as FTCA.  I do not believe just because the clinic employees are treated as federal employees for malpractice insurance coverage purposes, the entity is therefore governmental.

If the center was not established and is not maintained by a health district, city, county, state or federal governmental entity, it is not governmental, correct? 

Thank you.