msmith

What about 1.414(v)-1(d)(2)(iii)?

I am not sure that I do. Catch-up contributions are matched - a match that relates to an excess contribution is forfeited. If Treasury still treats the recharacterized amount as an excess contribution, then, do I have a related match issue.

Yes, catch-up contributions are eligible to be matched.

If I have a failed ADP Test and I rechacterize an excess contribution as a catch-up deferral do I forfeit the related Match? Sal Tripodi's ERISA outline seems to indicate that forfeiture is not "required." Who makes that call? I am using a Corbel Volume Submitter and the definition of Excess Contributions does not mention this. The document does state that Matching contrbution that relate to excess contributions shall be forfeited. Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

Regarding participant directed loans - If a Plan limits loans to one loan at a time, hardship only, from deferral source only, and on and on, is this considered an investment restriction? Also, what about participant directed loans that are not illustrated on the quarterly statements provided by the Recordkeeper (TPA reconciles loans at the end of the Plan Year). If these loans are attached to a Plan that requires quarterly statements, do you feel that we would have the update the loans on a quarterly basis, or just provide the last available data? Combination plans, where the deferrals are individually directed, but the profit sharing assets are commingled in a Trustee directed account - We have several of this sort and they have up to 10 accounts, with several pages of investments. Does anyone have a good method of providing this data on the quarterly statements? All comments are welcome.

If I retroactively correct, by amendment, to define union employees as eligible employees do I have to submit the amendment for full correction?

That was what I thought also and I could find no cite to the contrary. The only reference to something of this nature was from the 1998 ASPA Annual Conference (IRS Q & A's, #59). However, that example was a stand-alone 401(k) and 100% vestng. The plan wanted to add a discretionary match with the 3/20 schedule. The IRS answer was "we believe that technically the plan has a vesting schedule of 100%....." Also, because of all the additions to the document (definitions, ACP testing, etc.) it is recommended to restate, rather than amend.

I am using a Volume Submitter document for a 401(k) Plan. The Plan currently has a discretionary profit sharing provision with a vesting schedule of 100% (full and immediate). The Client would like to restate to add a discretionary match provision. However, they want to use the 2/20 vesting schedule. Does anyone see any problem with restating to add the match and subject it to a different schedule? I know that it could be done if I was preparing a new document and providing both features with different schedules (at the same time).