Kevin C

Interesting thread!!! Sorry, but I feel the need to stir the pot just a bit more. 1. With the 3% non-elective safe harbor contribution included in the general test, doesn't Notice 98-52 prohibit you from using imputed permited disparity in the general test? 2. Aren't standardized AND nonstandardized M&P plans required to use 401(a)(4) safe harbor allocation methods? The situation being discussed easily fits into the adoption agreements for the both the standardized and NS protoype documents we use. When the logic starts telling us that we have to 401(a)(4) general test some plans using standardized prototypes, it seems a good time to step back and look at the big picture. Did the IRS make a huge mistake in how they integrated safe harbor 401(k) provisions into the M&P program? Or, did we miss something in getting here? I have a difficult time accepting the idea that we can have a standardized prototype plan that can possibly fail 401(a)(4). I'm starting to wonder if the IRS considers the 3% non-elective safe harbor contribution as a part of the CODA. Consider the following: 401(k)(12)(A) IN GENERAL. --A cash or deferred arrangement shall be treated as meeting the requirements of paragraph (3)(A)(ii) if such arrangement -- 401(k)(12)(A)(i) meets the contribution requirements of subparagraph (B) or ©, and 401(k)(12)(A)(ii) meets the notice requirements of subparagraph (D).