Bri

I kinda look at NIPA designations as "what do THOSE EVEN mean?" compared to ASPPA ones, but I also haven't been consulted to be a TPA owner before.

EZ is indeed the way to go.

Does a plan that excludes 100% of its eligible NHCEs have a "processes and procedures" problem which might cost the ability to even USE EPCRS here?

Out of curiosity, did you show the assets and liabilities netting to zero on the financial summary section of the 5500? (With the amount also listed on the Transfers of Assets section for 2022?)

Peter, I agree that if you're going to essentially overshoot the LTPT rule and be extra generous like that with the deferral eligibility, that you won't have a vesting problem where some might be 500 and some might be 1000. I'd be concerned about other unintended consequences, but haven't thought them out too much.

Right - the person wouldn't HAVE to defer, but would have more "not-earmarked-for-student-loan" take-home pay available to consider a deferral election. But that way the person gets the retirement savings (both EE and ER), the loan payment gets made, and the overhaul to the tax code could have been just a little bit smaller.

Can a plan sponsor get a business tax deduction for making an employee's student loan payment on his/her behalf? (If so, wouldn't it be easier to offer that benefit, and then the employee can contribute the corresponding amount as a salary deferral and just get a normal match?)

Good point about a SIMPLE (with a match) since the owner may not want to have to cover himself under the SEP, as the OP suggests.

The "bad consequence" that pops into my head first is that they might qualify for the "500 hours for vesting" rule, and yes that shouldn't matter if they aren't eligible for employer contributions, but then later become a full time employee who gets employer contributions, and ends up subject to a better vesting schedule than someone who'd been "regular full time" from Day 1.

No, that section of the Rev. Proc. is addressing the failure to deduct the money out of the paycheck, rather than the failure to send the money to the trust.

EBG.com does something like that, with a separate table when using the year's AMT versus GAR94 as the mortality table. Not sure how it reconciled to the funding requirements FOR such a contribution, though.

That's what I figured - it might not be as "absolutely" easy as just passing BRF....

Is there anything separate which would prevent the opposite layout being permitted, since age discrimination "only counts" when it's pro-youth?

Plus, death benefits have mandatory timing rules to the payout, so in some way the plan will have to force out the funds.

I just gazed at Code 4980, didn't see anything describing how the transfer "must" occur other than not passing through the employer's hands first.

I would think that you're subject to the -11g rules, where the increase in benefits must be nondiscriminatory. And another result of the amendment being adopted more than 2.5 months after year end being that you're not going to be able to reflect the benefit increase in the valuation. I just had something like this, where I grumbled, why wasn't the benefit change just made part of the original document signed last month? Because I think then it would have been okay, because a retro-adopted plan is deemed signed on 12/31. Willing to be wrong, though....

Unrelated employers? Basically the annual additions limit rules will come into play.

I think so - I read it as though the participant has to "leave 1,000 behind remaining in the plan"

(Looks like 2678 is the form to appoint an agent for tax reporting/depositing, including Forms 941 and probably most relevant, the 945 for a plan.)

Good point - sometimes plans will define allocation groups as HCEs and non-HCEs, so changing a definition mid-year has at least the potential to inadvertently but improperly cut back benefits.

Unless you think you can make more $ off them for the VCP application, of course.....🙂

Isn't there something that says the TPG election must be made by across all plans of the employer to be valid? (Either a regulation or even something in the plan's document.) I always took that to mean that if one of a controlled group's plans didn't have the election, it basically invalidated it across all the plans.

If an allocated amount is enough to qualify for the "active participant" box on the W-2 (which affects the taxpayer's IRA deductibility) then why shouldn't it be good enough to count for 404 purposes?

I think this blurb from the 1.401(k)(3) regs has it spelled out as plan year quarters: (ii) Periodic matching contributions. The safe harbor matching contribution requirement of this paragraph (c) will not fail to be satisfied merely because the plan provides that safe harbor matching contributions will be made separately with respect to each payroll period (or with respect to all payroll periods ending with or within each month or quarter of a plan year) taken into account under the plan for the plan year, provided that safe harbor matching contributions with respect to any elective contributions made during a plan year quarter are contributed to the plan by the last day of the immediately following plan year quarter.

My guess is that 1 is bad and 2 is good, since the tax deadline is not 9-15 in the case without an extension.