austin3515

That rule is limited just to new plans thank goodness. Any plan adopted after 12/29/2022 is subject to the new mandatory auto enrollment but no others (at least for now).

Plan has QACA Match, so changing to SH Match effective 7/1 would be an amendment that increases everyone's match for the whole year. Do we think this is possible? The primary objective is to eliminate the auto enrollment.

That does work, so we'll go with it. Thanks RBG!

I'd say in the last month or so, but yeah using the same link for probably 6 or 7 years. So this one then? We used to be able to start right from the page that has the user name/password inputs... https://eob.asppa-net.org/

LAtely the website i had bookmarked for the EOB login page is not really working anymore. I finf that I have to google it every time, and even when I find a page that works, it seems to be a challenge to actually get to the book itself post-login. Anyone had this problem and no of the best way to get in? Obviously we can call ASPPA too...

Not having a SOC1 in and of itself doesn't mean they cant finish the audit. It just means they can't place any reliance on the recordkeepers controls and have to do more testing. Obviously no one wants to do that, but that's an important distinction in terms of why the client isn;t able to file the audit report. Not to be confused with the fact that I would not finish the audit either (if I was the auditor), I would want to wait for the SOC1 to be finished. If the DOL comes calling, I would not hesitate to throw the recordkeeper under the bus. I agree a traditonal TPA (such as yours truly) doesn't have a SOC1 (we're not doing high volume/systems heavy work). So if they are waiting for a plain vanilla TPA to produce a SOC1 they'll be waiting a long long time! We definitely get asked for our SOC1 all the time so it's a common question.

They did confirm YEDC is in fact Year End Data Collection. Nicely done!

Ahh, that makes sense! Thanks!

Oh so we weren;t the only TPA who couldn;t decipher that ridiculous communicaiton? I'm sorry but I am losing it with those people. We also just confirmed same.

What is YEDC? The first communuicaiton included Relius ASP on affected systems. We're hooting and hollering to try and get a simple answer from them. I will let you know what I hear...

We think Relius is telling us their system will be off line this weekend? Can someone please tell me this is not the case? The timing clearly could not possibly be any worse.

Bracketed/bolded text text is me. This is the text from the reg you cited. Really (3) is what is most relevant. Again, this reg, and the article you cited are not related to my approach, they're about something completely different. (g) Employees of certain governmental or tax-exempt entities (1) Plans covered. For purposes of testing either a section 401(k) plan, or a section 401(m) plan that is provided under the same general arrangement as a section 401(k) plan, an employer may treat as excludable those employees described in paragraphs (g)(2) and (3) of this section. (2) Employees of governmental entities. Employees of governmental entities who are precluded from being eligible employees under a section 401(k) plan by reason of section 401(k)(4)(B)(ii) may be treated as excludable employees if more than 95 percent of the employees of the employer who are not precluded from being eligible employees by reason of section 401(k)(4)(B)(ii) benefit under the plan for the year. (3) Employees of tax-exempt entities. Employees of an organization described in section 403(b)(1)(A)(i) [i.e., a tax exempt 501(c)(3)] who are eligible to make salary reduction contributions under section 403(b) may be treated as excludable with respect to a section 401(k) plan, or a section 401(m) plan that is provided under the same general arrangement as a section 401(k) plan, if - (i) No employee of an organization described in section 403(b)(1)(A)(i) [again this means a 501(c)(3) tax exempt entity] is eligible to participate in such section 401(k) plan or section 401(m) plan; and [This requirement is not met in my scenario. ALL of the employees except for the HCE’s are eligible to participate in the 401(k).] (ii) At least 95 percent of the employees who are neither employees of an organization described in section 403(b)(1)(A)(i) nor employees of a governmental entity who are precluded from being eligible employees under a section 401(k) plan by reason of section 401(k)(4)(B)(ii) are eligible to participate in such section 401(k) plan or section 401(m) plan.

Its mindblowing that there is not more attention. I can't understand it.

First paragraph of the pdf in my link: SUMMARY: This document contains final forms and instructions revisions for the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report of Employee Benefit Plan and Form 5500-SF Short Form Annual Return/Report of Small Employee Benefit Plan effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2023.

Agreed, but from what I heard the AICPA was fighting this hard for obvious reasons.

Yeah me too. A lot of them I know spent years building up and growing their practices. Probably the ones they are not auditing anymore are the least profitable engagements but still, revenue is revenue. If there was a parraellell to the TPA world I would be ripping mad.

Wow, the auditors are gonna be ripped. I agree this is is good for sponsors but the 25% of their employee benefit audit practice just disappeared.

https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-02653.pdf After considering the public comments, the Agencies decided to adopt the proposed counting method change for defined contribution individual account plans by adding a new line item on both the Form 5500 and Form 5500-SF for defined contribution pension plans to report participants with account balances at the beginning of the plan year (there already is a line item for reporting the number of participants with account balances at the end of the plan year). Instead of using all those eligible to participate, defined contribution plan filers will look at the number of participants/beneficiaries with account balances as of the beginning of the plan year (the first plan year would use an end- of- year measure) when determining if they are eligible for small plan reporting options, e.g., the Form 5500-SF. Conforming changes are also made to the short plan year filings and the “80-120” Participant Rule instructions to reflect this new counting method. See Appendix C for details on changes to forms and instructions related to this audit related participant counting method change.

Belgarath, are you seeing something that covers this scenario perfecty? I still think someone who is not as risk averse as me could point to that and say "yup, I check off all the boxes!". Simply having no HCE's doesn;t mean the plan is not required to satsify the ADP test in my opinion. Again I would never ever do this because it's way too aggressive...

That article is about a wholly owned for profit subsidiary sponsoring a 401k, which is not the same topic. This is a 501c3 who has chosen a 401k plan for it's employees, and uses a 403b just for the HCE's to avoid the ADP test.

Interesting. One could argue I am subject to the ADP test, there just are no HCE's, however, I did begin this thread under the premise that something has to make this not allowable and I think you've given me something to point to!

Definitely needs to pass before and after. If not passing before, you need to shift deferrals for HCEs as well as NHCE's. Perhaps that is what you are referring to.

Thats what I'm doing, HCE's in 403b. But I have to aggregate the match in one ACP test. In order to shift I can shift deferrals from ADP to ACP if I can pass the ADP test before and after the shift. I can shift 100% of the NHCE's deferrals to the ACP test and still pass the ADP test becase no HCE's have 401k. It's really a very interesting question.

HCE's participate in the 403b plan to avoid the ADP test. All employees are eligible for a match and we're failing ACP Testing. Someone in the office asked "can we shift deferrals to the ACP Test". Any Seinfeld fans out there - "You just blew my mind." Because of course the only deferrals in the ADP test for this plan are for NHCEs so I can shift 100% of the deferrals to the ACP test which will basically exempt this plan from ACP testing. Aside from the sheer obnoxiousness of this really cool idea (I might be terrified to do it in practice), what is to stop me?

No calendar year data elections in any plans.