Bri

Only match money can be used to refund a match test failure, definitely don't swap sources. But hey, just count the amounts to refund out of his prior distribution.

Happy retirement! I know I have a printoff of yours at least 20 years and four jobs ago detailing which Code sections don't apply to government plans, it's been a fantastic resource to have!

They should pop up if you slowly type the start of a user's name here in the comment space. @fmsinc Yours came up first on the list after I typed the @ and the f - I was given a pop-up menu of several BL users to choose from.

I bet their recordkeeping software could do it within a minute.

So if he's got the derived Earned Income number popping in somewhere else, that becomes the B2 in Miles's formula above.

No, QNECs are not subject to 402(g). Somebody could do 24,500 AND get a QNEC. They're nonelective contributions, so I suppose a sponsor could give someone a 72,000 QNEC if they wanted to be that *one* employer..... They are included in the 401(k) test if the employer elects to treat them that way. So in theory, not necessarily, but it's one of those things where the sponsor's probably making them only with the intent of including them. (And then the 401a4 rules can get slightly annoying if you do have QNECs being used in the ADP test.)

As long as they're permitted by your plan document, then that's absolutely a workable solution to the test results. QNECs in and of themselves can exist for no particular reason other than Sponsor goodwill. But they're usually provided specifically because of how they help testing results.

Well, the 31% limit is going to be 117,800. The DC portion of that can't go over 95,000. If there is a mandatory DB amount that's nonzero, that eats into the 117,800.

I suppose it depends on whether or not the DB contribution is mandatory or not. If their MRC is 0 then they could skip DB funding and do the 25% DC.

Isn't this the technicality on the difference between Nx and N(12)x?

I'd be using Excel's "text to columns" feature to be able to generate a CSV file from the original TXT, but that's because I prefer delimiters to fixed-width.

Yeah, I'm not sure you need to separate the funds, since you should be separating the recordkeeping behind the scenes. The gains on the Roth are computed the same way as they are on pre-tax accounts in a pooled setting.

Either of those sound pretty good.

You're spot on, actually. Failure to follow the plan document, for starters....

Sure, if there are no CB accruals then your gateway drops back to whatever your DC allocation itself will require, including potential TH.

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....