Bri

That sounds right, they get 5 if they have to, but in this case the guy isn't subject to duplication of THM benefits. And yes, the PS would have been "the rest" of the THM. I have a combo client where one HCE gets a 4% SHM and therefore only a 1% PS to get her all the way to five.

Well, is your SECURE 2.0 amendment going to operationally reflect the no THMs for otherwise excludables? If not, then you'll want to review exactly how that 5% is spelled out. Is it 5 because the document says everyone gets 5, or is it because the plan says anyone who needs to get 5 will get 5? That first HCE in theory should only need a 3% THM, already covered by the match they got. But the document might have been written to force the 5 upon the guy. Kinda would need to see more of how much the THM is written as an override to the other provisions.

....and don't be cutting back any allocations of the forfeitures where you might come to realize language was always on the books!

The trustees should move ALL the funds to the pool, or none of them. For their own 404(c) protection, and because what's less easy than individual accounts? Having BOTH the individual accounts *and* a pool. They said it was complicated!

That's a no. Your deferrals (even catchups) can't exceed your wages.

The allocation formula is only dependent on which plan they put the contribution into. Sure if they put it into the new plan, they'd have to follow that plan's pro rata formula. And if they put it into your plan, they get to do it that plan's way. THM would apply to the 1-but-not-2 years people since the statutory exclusion rule only excludes the <1 people (notwithstanding entry dates). What if "your" plan did what it would normally do...Then you provide a THM if necessary under the new plan to anyone swept up in between years 1 and 2. See if that plan automatically forces the THM when not otherwise provided. Actually that plan would need to also guarantee gateway since they'd be tested together. Sometimes a document will have THM/gateway sort of "override" the plan's typical allocation rules.

I think it's more like the deposit can go to the Roth IRA directly to make the conversion live upon receipt.

I'd say nothing, BUT he should have made a big ol' estimated tax payment in the third quarter last year from personal assets. Unless a Roth IRA wasn't where he indicated the funds should go.

Well, even if you wanted to test them separately, Plan A has a 0% NHCE ratio (you do have to measure the entire controlled group's population) so you're going to have to aggregate them, first and foremost.

The same as for not filing the proper form at all, I'd guess.

See, now this is the kind of thing that those Opinion Letter serial numbers are good for. Unfortunately 2013 is too far back for this, but if this had been a year these were reported, you could find a slew of clients using that document, and then you'd have a list of potential cold-calls that might hit! "Hi, you don't know me, and I don't even want your adoption agreement, just the basic plan document...."

Failing to do the safe harbor you're supposed to doesn't "default you" into ADP testing. It means you have a separate operational error to correct. But you might be outside the SCP window at this point.

I would approach it as, that should be a company check for the deposit. Where the company got the money from, I don't mind hearing/seeing/speaking no evil as to how. So that I can at least apply a standard of reasonableness

Wait a second, the plan benefit never gets to go over 100% of FAE3. That's what's forcing the payments to start early in the first place. The post-NRA adjustment is on the 290,000, not the 100%.

The new 401(b)(3) rule doesn't require the post-year-end new benefits to separately pass 401a4 in and of themselves, unlike the way an -11g amendment used to.