Bri

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.)

Yes. both sub-plans still need to satisfy the overall gateway.

RBD is still 4-1-26 even if lump sum coming later in 2026.

The DOL's missed filing rules are here: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/employers-and-advisers/plan-administration-and-compliance/correction-programs/dfvcp

Sounds like you should do the AE adjustment from March to December on the benefit, and then calculate the lump sum as of December based on the adjusted benefit.

According to the ERISA Outline Book, the IRS took the position at a conference that you count ADP/ACP, but had no opinion on 402g excess. (The book's discussion also suggested you wouldn't count 415 excess distributions, since those were never proper annual additions to begin with.)

That was my thought, too - you can do it but you have lots of other things to pass, the ADP not one of them.

ha, this sounds like a plan I'm taking over. 20% after year 2 isn't illegal, so a terminated guy's going to stay 20 even though his cash balance plan was set up with a normally impermissible 2/20. Meanwhile the guy listed at 60% on the takeover records obviously will have to bump to 100.

😮noooo!!! Well, for the rest of us. Thanks for everything over the years, Derrin, and enjoy the wind-down!

I'm looking at the last "hey you owe a Form 10" correspondence the PBGC sent a client a year ago, and the text you provide here is similar but not identical. In fact, the PBGC did not use the passive voice that the reportable event "has happened." They directly said the PBGC found the unpaid MRC on the 5500 and immediately provided the website for more information on the filing requirements at www.pbgc.gov.

I suppose that depends on your coverage ratios of NHCEs/HCEs with the availability to access the feature.

Document will specify if non-owners are defined as an entire excluded class. Maybe not the adoption agreement, but the basic plan document. Not unreasonable for a marketed "solo plan" to have such language, under the category of allowing time to address document issues like this before a new hire can get immediately swept in.