Bri

Why would it negate the exemption, if the dollars are being used to fund solely SH matches? As soon as they let one penny get used for any other contribution under the plan, then sure I'd agree you lose the exemption. I suppose then you can debate theoreticals - lose the TH exemption, versus paying the extra PW amounts due in wages rather than benefits....

oh, upon seeing the correction that HCE 2 is specifically not a participant, then that makes it evident he wouldn't need to get a THM.

You say he's a participant, but you also say he's excluded from the plan by name. Why is he being deemed a participant? Because if he's really NOT one, then the THM would not apply. That's different from being eligible and just not accruing anything.

This really should be addressed in future EPCRS because it's more common (plans' assets getting mixed up between them) than half the stuff they worry about in the Rev Proc as it is!

Yes, those "HR 10 plans" are just like every other qualified plan, same limits.

Check them both off? Design-based for the ADP, n/a for the ACP since it has to pass every year.

The interest is calculated on the remaining principal, so if the 1.80 isn't changing the balance due, your loan schedule should remain unchanged.

gotcha. I think your idea makes sense, post it as a 1.80 payment going in, no change to the principal balance due on the loan.

Isn't that just a gain transaction on the rest of the account, rather than anything to adjust the loan balance by? (Maybe it matters how daily-val you're using Relius for here)

Correct, family aggregation went away with SBJPA '96. (but for real, no attribution there)

Feels like something you'd find in the actual plan document, whether eligibility would be preserved upon an amendment like that. (EDIT 12-30): Oh, I thought you were looking ahead to 2026, not the 2025 year the guy had already been a participant under before the amendment.

Targeted bottom-up QNECs to the ACP test with those rules. Sounds fun enough.

No issues there, it's not like they have to follow the rules for safe harbor plans' lengths. Just make it a full plan year with deferrals effective 12/23 or whatever. But as John referenced, no document means no plan means no deferring out of order.

I used to subcontract to an actuary who mentioned that Datair's BPD for (I think) EGTRRA had a disclaimer that the 110% rule would not apply in a "never had NHCEs" plan. After all, it is a nondiscrimination issue (and with no NHCEs, blah blah blah). Anyway, I believe she mentioned that the IRS had them take that language out for the PPA version, and I can only guess it's out of Cycle 3 as well.

Can you allocate additional benefits anyway so that if you at least test on 415 pay everyone could come out equivalent?