Bri

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.

If the 401(k) election is recorded in writing to authorize the 24,000, then you simply have a late 401k deposit issue.

They ought to be able to, but they might need to convince either sponsor the excess has really occurred. (Otherwise this is a request for a random-ish looking withdrawal absent the knowledge of the other plan.)

415 limit is 100% of pay, not to be confused with the 25% 404 limit. None of this needs to be "employer" money. Every dollar of "profit sharing" reduces his Earned Income by the same dollar he could have done more deferral from.

True, you end up with the same max whether it's PS + K versus all being K, but you don't have any catchups since he's below the 402(g) max.

That doesn't sound so weird - but what if the exclusion was only part of the year? Would you use full year amounts or only those where the guy wasn't in an overlooked status? As a parallel to the original scenario, people who aren't eligible for a 401(k) plan at all because of their division or job category wouldn't show up as zeros in the ADP test. This is sort of inadvertently similar.

Doesn't sound like a severance of employment to me.....

I'd be treating this as a short-term impermissible loan and expect the appropriate interest returned to the plan as well to fully correct it as a prohibited transaction.

That's a more recent version, but yup!

Did you pair the proper Relius account number to that source? Like, maybe your account 201 is accidentally the match source.

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.