John Feldt ERPA CPC QPA

If the plan preserves the 100% schedule for all participant at the top me of the amendment, and if all the HCEs have six years of vesting service anyway, perhaps you can argue the change from immediate vesting to a six year schedule results in no discrimination when comparing employees with the same number of years of vesting service?

The refunded deferrals and earnings are both reported on Form 1099-R, no changes are needed on the W-2. I don’t see any reason to provide a W-2c.

Ah, thank you!

To allow a $0 correction, then the employer should provide the 45-day special notice after the correction begins. If the employer wants to give the 50% QNEC as part of the correction, then no notice is necessary. Look at Rev Proc 2021-30.

My understanding is that you can amend to exclude them prospectively and that the document probably requires a 30-day advance notice to do so, even though they are HCEs. But check IRS Notice 2016-16 to see if you agree.

Jakyasar, a reasonable classification is only necessary for passing coverage when the 70% ratio test for coverage is not satisfied. If there are only two employees and both are HCEs, then coverage is deemed to pass, so the exclusion can be done by name without creating any issues.

Take a look at Treasury Regulation section 1.401(a)(4)-12 and see if that helps. Keep in mind that in the reg, the term “plan” is actually the tested “plan”, which is the combined employer DC contributions and DB benefit amounts (other than match) from both the CB and the 401(k).

Must track separately also because, unlike 457(b) distributions, it will generally remain subject to the 10% excise tax if distributed as taxable before age 59.5.

Ditto.

They can only defer from W-2 wages not yet paid. They can only defer from wages paid once the 401(k) plan document and trust agreement is executed (signed). They have to be eligible under the terms of the plan. A deferral election is also required. Other than noting today’s date on the calendar, and the other 50 requests coming in today for a plan document to allow deferrals in 2025, that all sounds easy, right?

Peter, you asked: Is there another reason why a plan’s sponsor might prefer not to allow nonhighly-compensated employees to make an employee (after-tax) contribution? Yes, there is. When you run an ACP test, you only include the employees eligible for the match. So, if the match allocation has conditions, like last day or 1000 hours, then those employees aren’t in the ACP test. Yay. BUT, as soon as you allow after-tax, everyone eligible to contribute after-tax is now in your ACP test, even those that did not meet the conditions for the match. That could add a whole lot of NHCEs with zeros to the ACP test.

Right, it can be funded as after tax only up to the lesser of 100% of compensation or the $70,000 dollar limit. The extra $7,500 catch-up is only available as a deferral.

Meaning, you evaluate the plan as a whole for determining if all the NHCEs got a gateway. Keep in mind if the OEE group itself is not included with the others in testing, then no gateway applies to the OEE group - unless for some very strange reason the OEE group had an HCE getting more as a percent of pay than the younger NHCEs in that OEE group and you cross-tested the OEEs - but I’ve never seen that happen.

Am I understanding this correctly? Yes. Is there any way to bypass the testing for mega roth backdoor after tax contributions? Have zero eligible nonhighly compensated employees, no testing needed. In other words, employing only highly compensated employees who meet the age/service/entry requirements = no testing needed.

And the plan must have the safe harbor provisions. It is not considered safe harbor if the plan does not say it is safe harbor.