12AX7

Ok, your concern was for partial termination issues which is perhaps another matter that is separate from the original question. To the best of my knowledge, I don't believe partial termination is a nondiscrimination issue. Partial termination would be based more on the percentage on employment terminations during a period of time. Is that correct?

Where is the potential cutback for former employees? Anyone currently employed would be 100% vested according to the OP?

Yes you can. The amended vesting schedule would only apply for participants that have service as of the date the schedule was amended. There is no cutback for the participants that are not currently in service.

What about BRFs? Are all other provisions of the plans similar?

If you were testing any other component of the plan, you certainly would include deferrals. I assume there are no other plans to be included in the testing group and you appear to be above the safe harbor coverage point for the NHCEs. Tom and ETK do really well at enumerating on these issues.

Elective deferrals were made in the six month period following a hardship distribution. Where elective deferrals need to be returned to the participant by way of refund to the plan sponsor to go through payroll, how are the earnings of the disbursement reported and taxed to the participant? Thanks.

The IRS had already weighed in on this during an ASPPA Q & A. No. 2 is the way.

Take a look at this from the IRS: http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Retirement-Plan-FAQs-regarding-Partial-Plan-Termination Excerpt: An affected employee in a partial termination is generally anyone who left employment for any reason during the plan year in which the partial termination occurred and who still has an account balance under the plan. Some plans wait until an employee has 5 consecutive 1-year breaks in service before he forfeits their nonvested account balance. For these plans, employees who left during the plan year of the partial termination and who have not had 5 consecutive 1-year breaks in service are affected employees. See IRC Section 411(d)(3) and Revenue Ruling 2007-43. Note: Emphasis is mine.

That's why I wear bunny slippers to work . But seriously for a moment, you cannot create custom reports in the FT William admin system which is a big negative. You can create .csv exports of data and create custom reports outside of the system, but I ain't that smart.

Ask a lot of questions before making any decision to switch admin systems. Relius is a well-deveolped system. FT William needs to get up to speed, and has a different approach compared to other existing admin systems.

Thanks Dave for this great tip and all the work you do to make this site a valuable resource.

This may be of assistance: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/qab_021406.pdf

Did the rules change that extended the 415 restrictions to "brother-sister" type arrangements? I'm reading that it applies only to parent-sub groups (greater than 50%). The OP example appears to be brother-sister, but the threshold is not enough either way.

BG, I believe there was an ASAP on this matter a few years back. I read the instructions the same as you. Do you still pass error checks on Relius if you cound the D's on 6a or 6b?

Some documents allow for discrection as to when the match is calculated. Where it is calculated on a per-payroll basis, then the timely deposit rules prevail.