Doghouse

More specifically, that individual doesn't need to have a contribution allocated, but is not excludable for coverage testing. He or she is treated as eligible but not benefiting.

If we did have HCE's, could we not have a discriminatory rate of match issue, since it's non-uniform?

Of course, you've still got top heavy to be concerned with.

Again, while that language is typical, it's not required.

It's not just about excluding a location or division. If eligibility is changed to be less liberal, then participation for individuals who haven't met the new, more stringent eligibility requirements can technically be suspended until they do so. Not the most common approach, but it does happen.

Everything I know says that it IS a benefits, rights and features issue. What has to be nondiscriminatory is the RATE of match, which is based on the 401(k) contributions that are eligible for matching contributions. The fact that the nominal rate is the same but with a different cap effectively results in a different rate.

Thanks Peter, that did occur. Any specific thoughts about my questions? Your input is always good.

We are consulting for a company that sponsors two 401(k) plans - one for the partners and one for the non-partners. The partners' plan has been filing form 5500-EZ, which I think it is allowed to do, even though there are 80 partners. Two questions: 1. One of the partners has a QDRO and his account has been split into one account for him and one for the ex-spouse. Does the account for the ex-spouse make the plan ineligible for an EZ filing? 2. I haven't seen too many of these before (EZ filing for large number of partners). Is it true that even if the partner count got to over 120, they wouldn't have to get an accountant's opinion on this plan?

jpod - did the OP not state that they changed the name of the business? Presumably the prior name is now retired. So I must respectfully disagree with you that it is okay to have the plan sponsor stated as previously, without some kind of rationale. I also think you are reading too much into the word "successor". Just my opinion.

I think you can call a plan just about anything you want, and I've seen some doozies. The more important issue is the name of the plan sponsor, and I think you are okay there as long as the document includes successors as part of the Employer/Sponsor definition.

As I said, there are other sources that affirm the position, but I can't imagine why the logic can't be extended. There is really no difference.

And Employee Plan News does say "unless your plan terms provide otherwise".

See p. 7 of Employee Plan News at https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/epn_2012_1.pdf IRS has affirmed this position a number of times.

Is it really too late to amend the plan retroactive to the beginning of the year?

This usually shows up with a new comparability plan. There is a requirement that the allocations for the various groups be declared in writing, in order to meet the definitely determinable allocation requirement.

That's cuz I meant 10/15.

While I understand the rationale of the repeal, I'm not quite sure how the new 5500 "unextended" extended deadline of 10/15 will coordinate with the new C Corp extended tax filing date of 10/15. Doesn't leave much time to finalize contributions for the 5500. Also, assume that those corporate taxpayers who rely on extended corporate tax filing deadline to automatically extend 5500 will now extend to 11/15?

I didn't even know about those quizzes, but they do apparently still have them! However, I can't quite figure out how they work or how to nail down which ones provide credits specifically for ethics.

I'm taking advantage of the Western Pension & Benefits upcoming webcast. you can find it on www.westernpension.org/event-2074118. That's about the least expensive I've seen.

define cheap?

For the reasons stated, I would always draft plans to refer to the classification as of the first day of the year, rather than the last.

I, for one, do not believe an involuntary transfer is permissible.

I have facilitated this type of transfer several times. The ERISA Outline book has a lovely discussion about it in Chapter 6, Section III, Part D, 3.c.

We received a flash email yesterday from Ferenczy Benefits Law Center saying that the official announcement was made, but I haven't seen it myself.

Is there any issue with reasonable classification under 410(b)-4(b)?