Bri

plus, if you drop the K and not the M, you've now given the person a separate, less generous, matching formula. Which invites the academic exercise to test it.

That's the Tuesday after MLK day, so is there any argument that the transaction started the Friday before (business day #7) and the funds just *settled* on the 17th? Anyway, if they went out of their way to fix it with earnings, then they're owning up that they did it, and should report it.

You have 30 days after the year ends for after-tax amounts to count as annual additions for the prior year. So definitely too late for 2024 but perfectly timed to do 2025 amounts currently.

I've sort of got the same question - Plan was frozen in 2013 when the sole proprietor had 5 years of participation. Now he's got excess assets to use up, so although he could still unfreeze for 2024-2025 to get him 7 years, why not bang out an extra 5 years of participation for 415 purposes by doing a 401b3 amendment to accrue 5 more years (say from 2014-2018 at 0.5% per year to avoid triggering a contribution requirement) and really avoid worrying whether 7 years would be enough to use up all the excess?

Seems typical enough - does the document give you the specific factors to multiply their compensation by? Those are supposed to make it so that when you run the general 401a4 test, everyone gets the exact same EBAR. (So your rate group is supposed to be 100%.)

What does the document itself say about the allocation? Age-weighted plans are supposed to pass 401a4 by design, as long as you pass coverage.

So I'm eligible as long as I haven't been paid more than 28,000 so far during the year? But then I'm deemed ineligible and all my benefits are suddenly cut back to zero?

The deferrals could still have the one-year wait, and maybe the individual corporations' documents grandfather everyone employed by 12/31/2023 so that the spouses stay 401(k) eligible without triggering it retroactively for the new NHCEs?

yeah, you kinda missed the part where you explained who the employer is here.... But, if I am to assume this is some sort of ASG where these plans all have to be tested together, the fact that you've made them retroactively eligible for a new plan with a different allocation method than the others is not a problem. But again, what specifically is making this NHCE ineligible for ANY of the other plans to begin with? And why wouldn't you test the guy separately as otherwise excludable by himself?

Hey, until the rules change, a Y2K spreadsheet is just as good as anything! (I still x-test PS plans from something I built in my 20s, a decade I no longer am in.)

I thought Belgarath had it right - since the EIN is different you'd start over with 001 and go from there.

^^^if plans are identified specifically as a combo of EIN plus PN, that seems logical....

And hey, as someone who does controlled group tests....I suppose you're going to have to assume that everyone on the census reports you receive actually was offered the relevant plan when appropriate. I can't even imagine testing this where people who "actually were eligible" weren't picked up by the plan administrator. It's a completely different issue, but in theory could affect your results if corrective QNECs aren't made. (Insert scariest face emoji here. 🤬)

I would suspect it's indeed the 415 issue, if the plan's aggressively maxing the owner out anyway.

I presume you mean beyond "make all the plans have identical provisions" and are interested in how you're going to tabulate results. Maybe a big spreadsheet with rows for each plan, columns for excludable/nonexcludable benefiting/nonbenefiting. At least that way you'll have your denominators ready to go when you copy formulas in making each ratio. Might also help if you're going to need to permissively aggregate any of the plans.

and of course, try to avoid having a smaller BOY count the following year compared to the prior year's EOY without something really obvious as to why.

The 204(h) notice is certainly an important part of the process. Are you using a document provider? You might have access to some boilerplate language for the changeover, but specifically referencing the required grandfathering of protect benefits.

I can imagine "the worst part" being, you check the balance every day, but because it's in mutual funds or pooled separate accounts, the first day it shows as $6998 and the sponsor tries to force it out then they'll find at the close of business they're back to $7004. But that's because I ascribe to the idea that the value when it actually occurs is the value that matters. I remember when the 3,500 law used to say that once you crossed it, it is deemed to always be crossed regardless of market drops. I wouldn't mind a ruling clarifying that if it were under the limit within the last 30 days or something.....

Details seem scarce here, but if you don't agree with what they put, don't sign it until/unless they can explain it. Because the DOL won't go after *them* if there are errors.

Thanks, guys - I think the better reference actually ended up 1.401(a)(4)-4(e)(3) for the BRF details under the nondiscrimination regulations rather than the coverage ones.

Hey, could that be interpreted as a new-fangled amendment increasing benefits, because it helps the ADP Test?

LTPT doesn't have the same grandfathering rule as the auto-enrollment.

I suppose it would depend on which way they transfer, if any of them indeed do! Anyway, I'm not involved with the client, this was the boss's request to check on, as I was really wondering if having one plan with MAE suddenly suggests the need to test that against a grandfathered plan. In theory that "might" (ha!) be the only real practical difference between the plans. (I also have no idea why they'd balk at just sweeping them up into the existing plan, to be fair.)

They bought a group of stores they want to keep separate from their primary line, I guess - I got the question from top management as to how the 410b6C was going to come into play, whether they wanted to keep the acquired employees separate, so when he mentioned they wanted to give them a separate plan but mirror the provisions to make 410b easy, the question of the auto-enrollment and whether that would count as a BRF sorta bubbled up.

Client wants to set up a separate plan from its current existing 401(k) plan, in order to cover separately a new group of employees whose employer they'd purchased. Twin plans, so to speak, they'll have all the same contributions options/investments, etc. But, as a new plan, this one's going to be subject to mandatory enrollment, right? The other plan's grandfathered as not to have it, and they don't plan to change that. I don't recall auto-enrollment being something subject to BRF testing. But can anyone confirm/refute that for me? (Leaving aside for now what would actually be tested - there could be new owner HCEs right away, before we suggest these will all be NHCEs off the jump.) Thanks. -bri