Bri

Indeed, no sense creating a MDO for everyone else to fix one mistake.

Are they asking you to renew as an EA, or as an ERPA? That intro you pasted here doesn't say enrolled retirement plan agent

Worst case scenario might be to extend the 8955 deadline. I actually just checked that a terminating plan does have the deadline and requirement to "D" everyone previously reported. (Ongoing plans might not have as much of a time requirement to update to D, right?)

Speaking of thinking, Peter - that's a great thought of yours there that *any* late deposit brings questions of 401(a)(2). Why look for more obscure references of what's gone wrong, when "page one of the 400s" has it right there for you? 🤔 (unless one suggests the undeposited amounts aren't yet plan assets to divert anywhere else)

Agreed, Peter - It's the prohibited transaction rules (the business holding onto what should be plan money) that make important the deferral deposit timing in non-Title I plans.

All correct. No requirement on the 6%. (After all, any company can have employees make after-tax contributions independent of employer contributions.)

Okay, the idea here is that she wants to get to her DC annual additions maximum, which will likely exceed the sum of the deferral max and then the 6% DC allocation. So she does the rest as employee after-tax. as having no employees means the ACP test is passed. As for the backdoor part of the Roth, that's just a Roth conversion of some/any of the total, including the employee after-tax, so that she's basically gotten the full DC max and it's all/some become part of a Roth account within the plan.

yeah, no argument there - If everything's identical then they could have a separate plan for every single employee, too.

Maybe they don't want THEIR asset levels showing up on a publicly disclosed 5500-SF. So their plans are each an EZ so as to file less publicly, but everything gets tested together?

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?

They'll be allocated those zero dollars and LIKE it. (Zero value versus "null" value, if you've ever had a Crystal report come out crappy.)