Pension Nerd

My sympathies to Mike's family and friends. He was always someone whose responses I knew I could trust. I always was proud of myself when his response was what I thought might be the correct answer! He will be sorely missed.

Is this company hiring a retirement plan administrator? I might know someone who is interested. 🙂

If anyone has a cite that would support that Roth has to be made available for all participants, just not those who are catch up eligible, I would be most appreciative! 🙂

I want to make sure my original question doesn't get lost... Can a plan allow Roth contributions to only be made for catch up contributions? If Roth is added to allow for employees who earn more than $145,000 to make catch up contributions, can participants who are under age 50 (not catch up eligible) be only allowed to contribute to pre-tax (be excluded from the Roth)? Is there a benefits, rights and features issue?

@RatherBeGolfing Is there a cite you could provide that would support?

What do you think? Can a plan allow Roth contributions to only be made for catch up contributions? Participants who are under age 50 would have no option to make a Roth contribution - Roth would only be available to those who are making catch up contributions.

I have a participant due to receive a distribution from their 457(f) plan in August. they also participate in a 457(b) plan. The 457(b) plan does not exclude "distributions from an unfunded deferred compensation plan" from the definition of compensation. If the participant makes a timely election (by the end of July), could they defer from the 457(f) distribution (which they will receive via payroll) into the 457(b) plan. Or should that compensation not be allowed to be deferred into the 457(b) plan? If it's the latter, I would so appreciate a reg cite :-)

Happy Friday All! Thanks for all of the suggestions! All of these were so eloquently communicated in the article I am trying to find!!!! :-( I'm not yet ready to give up hope that someone will have it!

I'm hoping someone else remembers this and has a link! There was an article a while ago (possibly several years) that very helpfully laid out why the current year testing method was better than the prior year testing method. I cannot find it anywhere! Does anyone have a link to it they could share? Thanks!

Anyone have any thoughts on this one? I have the same/similar questions. Thanks!

Tom.... Just to clarify...are you saying you think the preamble to the 415 regs supports the answer provided in the ASPPA Q & A? If so, the comp limit would not prohibit a person earning let's say $560,000 ($21,538 per pay) from spreading their contributions out over the entire year? I am just a little confused by the language in the preamble...it sounds like the above example will no longer be allowed? I'm hoping this is not the case... Thanks!

Tom & Mike, Thank you both for your input! You are correct, the prior recordkeeper was totally asleep at the wheel. In addition to breaking out into component groups and saying that each one passed at 100%, they also imputed disparity on the non elective contribution (which was used to satisfy the safe harbor for the ADP test....no can do...they did ultimately agree that was incorrect)... Thanks again...you two are my heroes!

Mike, I am pretty certain I did not misunderstand the prior recordkeeper's response to me. They very clearly told me that the coverage for Group B would be 100% since each component would be treated as a separate plan and you would only have to look at those covered within that separate plan (maybe they are confusing the word "plan" with "employer".... They told me their authority for this was Treas. Reg. 401(a)(4)-9...when I checked the reg, it wasn't saying to me what I guess it was saying to them... Anyhoo... I have a couple of questions: What is the reasonable group test (the 3rd prong you mentioned)? If I was able to find 72 or 73 NHCEs who were all receiving the highest allocation rate, would the ABPT still be needed? I am a little confused about that part. Your final comment was you would be surprised if the plan actually failed...I have tried everything under the sun with this one and am not having any luck, so I'm wondering why you would be surprised if it actually failed? Maybe I can get it to pass with any suggestion you might offer... Thanks!

Thanks for the responses! I feel a little saner now!

Help! I have a plan that has to be cross tested. The rate group test is not passing on a whole group basis. The prior vendor broke the plan into component plans: Group A HCEs 97 NHCEs 995 Group B HCEs 11 NHCEs 15 The rate group testing passes in Group B on a contributions basis, because all of the employees in Group B have the highest allocation rate allowed by the plan. Group A passes on a benefits basis. However, I thought that in order to be able to break a plan into component plans, 410(b) must be satisfied for each component as if they are a separate plan. I interpreted this to mean that Group B would not satisfy 410(b) because the ratio % would be: NHCEs = 15/1010 HCEs = 11/108 14.58% I have never broken a plan into components for cross testing, so I questioned the prior recordkeeper on how Group B could possible satisfy 410(b). They responded that the coverage is 100% because the components are treated as completely separate plans. Am I crazy? (there are probably several non pension related reasons I am crazy)...but from a pensions perspective, is it possible the coverage can be 100% for Group B? Thanks!