Jump to content

Bri

Senior Contributor
  • Posts

    1,080
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    57

Everything posted by Bri

  1. Yeah, nobody wants to make the participant surrender two weeks' worth of ill-gotten gains! 🤪
  2. True, but even if there were NHCEs, that doesn't meant the other HCEs get 5, they'd still only get 3.
  3. Is this for a 2023 plan year filing where it's not actually late yet?
  4. For a VCP application, you can suggest what you'd like and hope the IRS takes the bait. Why not suggest a 1-to-1 correction based on just the one guy who got missed, and only applying it to the "main test people"? If the IRS says no you're back where you started, but see what they might go for....
  5. Technically, this #2 guy is a statutory exclusion, like let's say the guy termed on 9-15-2024. But the IRS allows for multiple interpretations for plan sponsors to take on how they sort out these people. They'd be okay if you didn't consider them excludable, since the plan's entry date for the person would have passed on 7/1. They also permit the interpretation to say the employee stops being excludable right at the 1-year anniversary date in March. (I've used software that lets you choose the interpretation your sponsor wants.)
  6. Not quite, if the first day of the next plan year comes up sooner, that takes precedence over the 6 months. See 410(a)(4).
  7. Agree with Lou - you might want to try VCP and suggest something where only those with balances (EPCRS does let you restrict it to "only those still actively employed" in self-correction) get the corrective contribution. Can't say whether the "going off-script" might require some juicing of the corrective allocations.
  8. Well the first thing regarding that - The plan documents probably indicate how the THMs are allocated in either, both, or (perhaps likely) just the DC plan. If the DC plan document says all the non-keys get 5%, then they get that regardless if TH could have already been covered. The rate of accrual in the CB plan doesn't matter as much, like how DC plans can sneak by with a lower THM rate if no Key gets to 3%.
  9. If the transfer-to-PEP paperwork mentioned transfer of *all* assets/liabilities of the prior plan, that should sweep up the receivable as well, no?
  10. And you've got the "service for vesting" filled with that smaller number of years, rather than the plain "service" number of years? And it didn't already have the 100% vesting error in the prior plan year's file, so that it would have just rolled that forward? I don't recall if I've seen that kind of thing screwed up before, so I'm at least pondering a "verify absolutely everything in the employee record" approach and hope Relius would do it right if it is just a case of missing a datum spot in the software. Heck, I've messed up stuff myself by entering 2003 for termination dates instead of 2023 already this year.
  11. Bri

    EACA related

    I think there's a 10-employee minimum for the EACA rules.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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?
  17. 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)
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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?
  23. yes, at least according to every Derrin Watson seminar I've attended on it.
  24. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...