Bri

I think there's a 10-employee minimum for the EACA rules.

No, if you rig the W-2s you've literally changed the numbers for the actual test, and those withdrawals would have been operational defects if the amounts would not have been the same refund amounts from a test with the new deferral numbers.

I would think most pension actuaries don't have their fingers as much in the DC pies, simply because most DC admin work typically can be done by someone cheaper to the TPA business owner. Aside from non-discrimination on combos and 404a7 impacts, the actuaries I've worked with never touched any DC plans, and now that I'm doing actuarial work there's a corresponding "DC person" to handle their half.

I believe such "limited participants" do not count - I used to use a report that would count up the number of balances, but then would indicate people who had weird status affecting their inclusion in the 5500 count. Pre-participation rollovers and alternate payees were usually what it would catch, or the occasional ineligible person who got let in too early.

Safe harbor and profit sharing are both nonelective contributions provided by the employer. So they're tested together - you get one but not the other, you nevertheless benefited. So the T<501 exclusion does not apply, basically because the person literally benefited.

IF the employees 1-6 listed above are truly all 6 of the employees in the plan, then go with a safe harbor 3% nonelective, but indicate the sponsor will only allocate it only to NHCEs. If there really aren't anyone but those six HCEs, then you'll have manipulated the top heavy exemption for SH plans perfectly, no?

Yes, you're going to have lots of zeros if they did no after-tax and also got no match (even if their lack of match was a consequence of a last day/1000 hours thing - THAT is what could otherwise get people out of the ACP test, if there weren't the after-tax component)

oh then the daughters are HCEs as well, so your HCE average is going to be one-third whatever rate the owner actually contributed. Very good for testing purposes indeed. Unless you've got a top heavy plan, you might indeed be able to not require any further employer contributions.

You understand it correctly - the ACP test includes anyone eligible for either the match or after-tax arrangement, so if they all *could* have done after-tax, they're in.

People who waive participation like that are still included in your coverage testing, just as not benefiting. That's what you want if the guy's an HCE. As to whether the daughters are HCEs also, I suppose that depends on why the first guy was deemed an HCE in the first place.

Dig deep into the document's definition of an hour of service - there may be language stating the Plan Administrator's records may be allowed to be kept in such a way that they track it pay period to pay period based on the dates paid, rather than actually worked as a matter of uniformly-applied convenience. But absent anything like that, you should make a claim for benefits as your SPD allows you to based on your records.

In for a penny (3%), in for a pound (gateway rate)

So recordkeeper 1 decided that since the check went stale, they wouldn't do the 1099-R? If the check had been written in December would they still be waiting for it to clear before deciding to issue the 1099 for last year?

yes, at least according to every Derrin Watson seminar I've attended on it.

Maybe plan sponsors will no longer list their spouses with 1000 hours every year only to justify their deferring. Put them in at 501 and it's more believable, too. I'm sure we've all seen the spouse deferring 92.35% of pay and attempting to ruin a perfectly good average benefits percentage test.

None of these people meet the statutory eligibility of 410(a). So test them separately.

Do your actual testing with a definition that does pass 414(s) then, even if the allocations were done with the comp definition you were given. If you can pass with gross 415 pay, for instance since that passes 414(s), then you should be in the clear.

The funds were distributed, which they should have been, regardless if they were an actual benefit payment, or as an ADP refund. The plan just has to do two 1099-R forms bifurcating how much counts as what, and then since the IRA has money it shouldn't in there, the IRA owner will need to get it out or face the penalty for an ineligible rollover contribution.

So the coverage ratio is 70% or more, and the contributions are a uniform 3% (a safe harbor uniform percentage of compensation) for those who do get them? That'd be fine.

Way more than the minimum contribution, or way more than the maximum deductible?

They can start another PS plan for 2024 with new comparability, and merge them next year.

What do the plan's document and procedures for in-service distributions say?

Plan B shouldn't be issuing a 1099 for this. They're just fixing an inappropriate rollover CONtribution.

whoa, wait.....If she gets paid in 2024, she gets a 1099-R for 2024. Why would or should this be retroactive in any circumstance?

I'd make sure nobody's match amount exceeded the amount a annual formula would have come up with, too. If it's 50 on 4 every week, how did this one guy end up with 2.05% for the whole year - that kind of thing...