Miles Leech

CuseFan is correct here, that's my mistake. I directly referenced the definition of wages under §3401 (which normally does include severance payments), forgetting §415 carves out exclusions & modifications. Been a long day, rookie mistake on my part; editing my original response now. Thanks for catching that!

You are correct, terminated employees do not need a top heavy contribution, provided their termination date is before the end of the plan year for the year in question. Under §415, which to my knowledge is required to be used for top heavy minimums, severance pay is not included in compensation.

The two answer above by Pam & Bri are both good places to look. Unfortunately, Relius is a very complex beast & I feel your pain on the highly unhelpful error messages; it's one of the biggest reasons my firm is moving away from Relius this year. In regards to Bri's answer, if you go to plan specs > source summary and click the magic hat button (thanks for the clear labeling FIS), you can generate accounts. By selecting all sources & all investments, you can make sure your plan has an account for every investment-source pair. If your plan has certain more complex provisions relating to source-specific investments, just be careful using this tool. Per Pam's answer, make sure this is done for any relevant plan years. Hope this helps!

"Trailing" post-severance compensation that meets the 2 1/2 month rule is included. Other forms of post-severance compensation (unused leave cashouts, certain nonqualified deferred compensation, salary continuation for disabled participants or military members, etc.) are all governed by the plan document, so you'll have to refer to your specific plan. Our plan documents made through ASC default to include post-severance compensation, with the ability to exclude the various types above. Not legal advice, YMMV

I doubt it. Not a CPA, but I can think of very little advantage to what you describe. If it happens YoY, they're really just kicking taxes down in a cascading way, not gaining much of an advantage. In fact, they're likely losing out. I don't know how much a safe harbor contribution would cost them, or how much of it would go to HCEs / owners, but the tax savings of a) the safe harbor allocation itself and b) the fact that HCEs could defer another $15,000 (or more) combined annually means they're likely losing a pretty significant tax advantage by not doing safe harbor. I do plan design & work with sponsors fairly often, and honestly there's just always some that will refuse to design a plan in the way that makes sense. Some don't want to be safe harbor because they see employer contributions as "giving money away" and they don't want to do that, even when you break down the numbers of how it actually saves them money overall. Some also just simply don't like being told what to do or what their plan should be. I've had prospects come to us who would benefit significantly by being a SH Non-elective instead of their current safe harbor match; they do new comparability profit sharing every year and have to make a full 5% gateway contribution on top of their safe harbor. Non-elective would save a huge chunk of money for a company that wants to max out its owners, but they came looking to offer match and are set on sticking with it.

Treas. Reg. §1.410(a)-7(a)(3)(ii): Employment commencement date reads While 1.410(a)-7 is, in general, about the elapsed time method in particular, this section states "in order to credit service accurately under any service crediting method". Unless there's precedent out there otherwise, I would assume using the date they actually started working would be defensible under the above definitions, as they never worked an hour of service prior to that. YMMV, Not legal advice, etc etc.

Are you saying the plan uses a permitted disparity formula and is using 100% of the taxable wage base? If so, you could view the formula as either 6% of all compensation, plus an additional 5.7% on any compensation over the SS wage base 6% of compensation between 0 and the SS wage base, and 11.7% on compensation over the integration level Both achieve the same thing, and I've seen different individuals prefer calculating it either way. If you're asking specifically about a formula for excel to calculate it, I'd use =0.06*B2 + 0.057*MAX(0,B2-176100) Assumes 2025 taxable wage base, replace the 176,100 if using a different year. B2 would be the compensation used for allocations, can be changed to meet your needs.

Had a similar shock entering into my firm, which uses FIS Relius for recordkeeping + compliance. As someone on the younger side (especially for this industry) and with a lot of exposure to modern tech, this industry is decades behind. That said, there are some pretty good options emerging. Congruent's CORE recordkeeping platform has blown us away with actually looking & feeling like a modern cloud-based system that is still highly functional. Definitely worth getting a demo & looking into. At RANDUG this year, along with Core, there's a platform called Penelope that seemed fairly intriguing. There's also SS&C, Schwab's RK tech, and I feel like ASC has a RK platform as well, but don't quote me on that. On the documents side of things, ASC's documents are far superior to FTW in my experience. The user interface & process of designing plans is so much smoother, and they have an API system for integration with any proprietary firm software you may use. These are the only two vendors I'm aware of in the Doc space, but frankly ASC is so easy to use I don't have much of a drive to look at alternatives. For compliance, it's once again really just ASC and FTW I'm aware of. I'm not thrilled with either compliance module, and this is the area the industry needs work. Because of this, I'm actually in the process of designing & developing a modernized compliance testing software with a friend of mine. It'll be a good year or two at least before it's ready but it's coming along well.

This is very helpful, thank you!

Our firm pretty much exclusively has done small / micro plans (90% of our plans are <1M in assets and under 30 participants). As we grow, I know large plans are likely something we'll have to deal with eventually. We have one plan that's getting close enough to the threshold for requiring a large plan audit that we know we need to start thinking about that in the next few years. With our plan demographic, we've never once actually had a large plan audit. What kind of things should we expect? Does the auditing firm just ask us for a bunch of reports, and if so, what kind of information is generally requested? In the case that anything out of place is found, how much leeway is there in terms of them talking to us about correcting it vs reporting failures on an audit? I'd hate for a large plan audit to be the way we find out we're operating something wrong & cause problems for a client. Any guidance as we start to move into plans that may require audits?

We requested ownership information for a client that onboarded with us this year. Most of our plans are fairly simple with ownership as we specialize in small plans (I don't think we have a single plan that's large enough for a large plan audit), so it's nearly always just some split between a few employees. This company sent over a cap table, showing columns for common & preferred stock ownership, outstanding and diluted shares, etc for ~60 lines, some of them being employees holding stock, but also a large number of them (40+ or so) being holding firms or other entities that aren't individuals. A few questions. When calculating ownership for 401(k) purposes, is ownership specifically voting stock? Their preferred shares don't have voting rights, so that would impact how ownership % is calculated (CS / total CS vs common & preferred / all stock). How should we handle the potential of control groups? While unlikely, if a combination of those holding firms all held interest in another company that added up to 80%, couldn't we run into a control group issue that we'd have no way to know about? In this case, I believe the 80% ownership for controlled groups is specifically between 5 or fewer individuals/entities. If the 5 largest stakeholders don't add up to more than 80%, would it be safe to assume we're safe in this regard, as no combination of 5 firms could hit 80% anyways? If someone who held stock at this company also was an owner of any of the holding firms, would they then need attributed ownership from that? E.g if John Doe owned 5% of the shares of this company, but also held 50% of ABC Holdings, which held 10% of this company, would John's ownership be 5% (direct) + 50% * 10% = a total of 10% ownership for plan purposes? While the odds of any of this being particularly relevant is fairly low, especially in the small plan world, I'd prefer to have a solid understanding of their plan ownership; any input would be appreciated. Thanks!

A plan came on with us earlier this year, this is our first time doing testing for them. Owner wants a projection of what it'd look like to max out profit sharing with new comp (they've never done profit sharing before). Right now their plan doc has 3 month wait, no hours or age requirement, and monthly entry for all sources, including safe harbor. Owner has two kids, 12 and 14, which get a small paycheck, defer some, and get safe harbor money. This causes some wild numbers in 401(a)(4) testing because of their age; the $330 of safe harbor received by one kid means I'd need to get 5 NHCEs up to ~27 EBAR. Essentially, there's no way to max out the owner without giving wild contributions to everyone else because of those two kids. Our plan is to amend their document for next year to either have an age requirement or exclude HCEs from the safe harbor contribution, along with some allocation conditions and other small provision changes to make this much smoother next year. That said, is there anything at all we can do for this year to make this spread better? I've seen conflicting information about the use of statutory exclusions for 401(a) rate group testing & struggling a bit to wrap my head around if there's any way we can make this work. Any input would be much appreciated!

We're a TPA/recordkeeper who works almost completely in conjunction with 3(38) advisory firms to provide plans. As it stands we don't do anything in regards to investment lineups on the plans, that's chosen exclusively by whatever advisor is the 3(38) on that plan. We're toying with the idea of creating a very stripped-down, basic 401(k) plan to sell as a "plan in a box" of sorts for very small companies unable to afford our standard tier. One of the issues is that such a plan would require an investment lineup, and having an advisor with a bps fee on the plan doesn't seem ideal for this structure. We absolutely don't want to take on 3(21) / 3(38) liability, which is why we've never thought about this before. However, I've heard recently from some sources that 3(21) responsibility is triggered only if it's plan-specific advice given to a sponsor. Supposedly, I've heard that some record keepers are able to essentially say "here's our standardized fund line-up, you as a sponsor can either adopt it or choose your own funds to use" and in doing so, the plan sponsor remains the fiduciary for 3(21)/3(38) purposes. Anyone have any further insight on this?

Just to clarify, you're saying that the plan document describes a New comparability formula (employee individual group allocation), but the sponsor wants to do a pro-rata spread?

Recently I was lucky enough to receive the PenChecks NIPA scholarship to go for either a AKS or APA designation. I don't currently have any official designations so it's a very exciting thing. I know NIPA and ASPPA both do similar things but in different ways. My firm has never really invested in continuing education but I've convinced by boss to invest in it as I really would like to start getting official recognition. That said, memberships to ASPPA and NIPA are expensive and required to keep a certification, and I'd hate to end up in a sunk cost fallacy sticking with NIPA if ASPPA might be more useful. A couple questions: I know NIPA offers a kind of equivalency system for designations from some other institutions (for example, ERPA qualifies you for AKS 1, 2, APA 1-4). Does ASPPA have anything like this where a AKS or APA designation would be able to be converted to an ASPPA designation in the case we chose to switch? What's the cost difference look like between being a NIPA member and obtaining CE credits each year for their qualifications vs at ASPPA? We're a relatively small firm and it'd be at least somewhat of a consideration. Any insights would be very helpful, thank you.