austin3515

Funny I just switched back to the EOB about a month ago. I really missed it. I did not care for having to choose publications at Erisapedia, I want that one stop shopping text/ I still use the ask the author service. I was intrigued by the EOB AI thing but not so much that I wanted to ask my boss for another $700 a year. Apparently money doesn’t grow on trees. Who knew? rally close call though. Derrin and Ilene really do a phenomenal job of simplifying explanations.

I'm not familiar with securities laws but I'm very familiar with multiple employer plans. The nondiscrimination rules apply separately to each employer, but thankfully this Plan would be exempt from all testing. The OP did not mention but I am under the assumption that there are only partners in the partnership and no employees.

If the Partners contributed to the plan sponsored by the sole proprietorship in 2025 then yes they could in my opinion. SECURE 2.0 makes it clear you can amend for failures like this. They cannot retroactively adopt the Plan though and make contributions today for 2025. Retroactively adopting a 401(k) plan to a prior year is baazarly limited exclusively to Schedule C sole proprietors with no other EMPLOYEES (i.e., if they had employees who were not eligible, retroactive adoption is not available). Let's say in April 2026 Partners contributed to the Schedule C's 401(k) Plan. Based on the foregoing that seems way to aggressive even under SECURE 2.0 EPCRS expansions. They can of course adopt a profit sharing plan though. I'm not sure the existence of a controlled group changes things, personally. If the Sole Proprietor is a 50/50 Partner in some other venture, they could of course sponsor a single 401k plan. But I'd be curious to know why @Peter Gulia is asking :).

The Union portion of the Plan does have ADP testing first of all. The Union is not covered by the safe harbor so ADP testing is required. Union plans are exempt from ACP testing altogether (the collective bargaining process is the protection for the NHCE's on the match). For the non-union, you have no NHCEs and so all testing is passed by default. You can go hog wild, 415 max for everyone, and there's not a darn thing in the Internal Revenue Code to stop you.

As this Cycle 2 deadline is approaching, I am really very curious to know if others are addressing this issue. I believe this is going to be a very significant change that is under-appreciated today.

That's not based on the APR tables, that's just a formula that they all run prescribed by the regs. You can find it in the ERISA Outline Book if you are interested. I'm sure the ERISApedia textbooks have it too.

That's the table export that comes out of Relius. That's just for the APR's. You don't need a table to project todays allocation to age 65, even for a 20 year old. I think that is what you are asking anyway. So for a 20 year old to increase for 8.5% interes to age 65 is not what the APR tables are for, it's to determine the size of the annuity at normal retirement age.

The OP did not say it was a safe harbor plan though, and the 3 month plan year rule is only applicabe to safe harbor plans.

I'm not following how that document is written so can;t comment. The waiver talks about "Employees" (not Eligible Employees) so it seems to me that if you use this document to exclude Union Employees but then use this waiver, the Union people would be eligible. I can;t imagine anyone would want that. So maybe I'm missing something. Although: "To allow Employees hired on a specified date to enter the Plan without regard to the minimum age and/or service conditions," It doesn;t say without regard to the Eligible Employee Definition. Boy if I were them I would have used the words Eligible Employee though in that section. I guess I quit now. I think we are on the same page.

David D - In every document I have ever seen, the waiver is regarding Initial Eligibility (i.e., wait and service provisions). If someone elects to exclude union people, but they waive eligibility, that never means all of the union people are eligible on the first day just because they were employed, The waiver means any non-union employees who have not met age and service are eligible right away. Two key statements: "The owner deferred, but because all employees work <1,000 hours per year, they were told that the employees are all ineligible" "the business only started in 2025" If the business was new in 2025, the only way the owner is eligble but not the employees is if the "Exclude" option was used to Exclude part-timers with less than 1,000 hours. So I think someone had a pretty cool idea on plan design AND communicated the design correctly, but failed to realize that coverage would never pass. I hope Albany tells us which one it was :).

The way I read the initial post, the excluded employees are not excluded because they did not meet eligibility - they were excluded as a class. The "initial eligibility waivers" do NOT waive excluded class provisions. Hopefully the OP can clarify because this is a super critical distinction. If they are eligible for the plan, everyone has a missed deferral. If they are not eligible for the plan you only need to bring enough people to pass coverage which might be a way smaller group.

The "exclude employees > 1,000 hours" exclusion is usually in the definition of Eligible Employee and is NOT an eligibility condition. So if eligibility requirements were wiaved, that does not eliminate an exclusion. You have no ADP issues because the plan can carve out HCe's even if the are OE's into the ADP test, and in your case only one HCE exists. But then we get to coverage. There is no early participation rule for coverage testing. So now we need to bring in a bunch of people to pass coverage. Your plan is top-heavy so they all need the 3% THM. Then you also have a missed deferral opportunity for those people as well. I would go with 3%. So that's 6% for them. This is just back of a napkin, but what a mess. Hopefully it's a small number of employees.

An super good actuary told me that the best approach is individual annuity female 83, 8.5 pre, and 7.5 post. the 8.5 pre is to get the most bang for the buck on the age disparity between the young and the old. iaf 83 and 7.5 post was to get the lowest possible EBARS because imputing disparity is more effective at the lower rates (just like it is in a regular integration calc— I.e. you can double anything below 5.7%).

Oh yes indeed. Because if the median of the averages exceeds the regression analysis of q with x being equal to z. that's the other way to do it 🤣🤣🤣

This is not the APR's though, which is what is needed. Mine includes the APR's.