Bill Presson

I’m just spitballing here, but I’m going to say it’s a no for all your various scenarios. None of them are new plans.

Cuse, that's probably allowed. Our administrative provisions and the basic plan document from our provider all refer to elections and we've done those in all situations.

And they would have had to make the election by 12/31/2023

Just give the participant an extra profit-sharing allocation . Who cares what it's called?

Short answer is (generally) no. Because after-tax contributions are almost always just written as personal checks. If they are withheld from payroll, my answer changes a bit, but I have 0 experience with any plan doing that. So, as I said above, the election (to make an after tax contribution, not necessarily to have anything withheld) has to be done no later than 12/31 and the deposit has to take place by 1/30 to be counted in the prior year 415 limits.

W4-P is for periodic payments. W4-R is for nonperiodic payments. And it's very difficult to not spell "periodic" as "idiotic" most of the time.

After tax contributions are employee contributions and unrelated to the business entity. Deadlines are the same.

Well you can have in-service distributions with some restrictions (age, service, etc) as well as different requirements based on the source of money (deferrals, match, ps, etc). But the OP question was related to money the participant rolled into the plan from an IRA or another plan. We generally design the plans to allow those funds to be distributed whenever the participant desires.

I think the 1/29 date is the date the payroll is being run. If accurate, that date doesn't matter. The ones that matter are 1/30 (termination date) and 1/31 (check date). If the plan terminates on 1/30 and no further contributions are allowed, then the 1/31 check date is outside that parameter and no deductions should be processed. Time to fix the dates. Might mean they need to move the payroll check date to 1/30.

Read the document. It will say if they can or can't. We (almost) always code plans to allow that.

@Brian Gilmore He can use the technical terms. i deleted my stupid answer because i was thinking FSA. thanks Brian.

Unless it's an obvious ASG, we refer all those situations to ERISA counsel.

Why would you do that?

Just be wary of the top heavy provisions, if applicable

Agreed. Are they considering waiving that requirement for anyone employed on 1/1? I see that sometimes to catch the December people you describe and have it only apply to those hired after 1/1/2024.

If I grasp the meaning here, then it depends on what your termination amendment/resolution says. Ours typically eliminates last day requirement.

Then I don't see the issue here. You're not even having to do an -11g amendment.

Thanks Jak! Happy Holidays! It was so nice seeing you at ASPPA this year.

Correct. Yuck.

If they WANT to be a CG, have their atty use a method to make it happen. That can mean being involved in each other's business or using options, etc. You can force a CG.

https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/consequences-to-a-participant-who-makes-excess-annual-salary-deferrals

Going forward, they need to fix the payroll because that's where 402g excess issues are fixed (excluding issues with the participant in two plans) before they happen.

My experience of almost 40 years is that the check date is most often used. Otherwise, the administrative work is a mess.

Agree with @Lou S.. When you have 2 people, the greater of (40% or 2) is 2.

I'm wondering if by "back dating" the op means crediting the deferrals "as of" the correct deposit date so that future earnings are correct.