Bri

The trade-off is the bunch of extra 0% people in your ACP test possibly making that result worse.

Hang on, though - if 1/5 HCEs is getting an extra 3% more, and 2/6 NHCEs are getting 3.75% more than the normal allocation, then I don't think the increase in benefits is discriminatory. Those extra amounts would pass 410b and you wouldn't even have to try cross-testing them.

I haven't heard of running your ACP test if the underlying match component hasn't passed 410b yet.

If it's allocation conditions as the cause of the failure, why isn't the "coverage fix" then just to expand the actual match contribution for these folks, as opposed to allocating a QNEC? And then you'd calculate your refunds based on this expanded ACP test with those folks (terms/under 1000 hours?) brought back in

Hey it could be worse, you could be hiding "this is a safe harbor 401k plan" from us.... (HCEs don't get gateway but might still need some extra top heavy minimum, if they're in both plans.)

I'll obviously recommend checking for sure with an ERISA lawyer, but I'm at least hopeful for you, knowing that the first plan hasn't actually gone away.

I am getting concerned that "we just won't have Roth" is sounding impermissible. Plans aren't required to have Roth, plans aren't required to have catch-ups, but some of the legal discourse (articles in the daily newsletter, for instance) seems to sound as though the IRS is mandating sponsors shoehorn them in nevertheless.

Isn't that the original definition of the cycle, so keep adding multiples of 3 years to it? My SSN ends in a 2, so my enrollment cycles have begun each of April 1 of 2013, 2016, 2019, and 2022. And so when I re-upped in spring 2022 last year I entered in my CE amounts from 2019, 2020, 2021.

Sounds like the intention was there but did Plan 1 actually formally terminate? Or did they just kinda switch everyone's new contributions to Plan 2 (the PEP) while Plan 1 stayed in a sort of limbo state?

Are these just plans merging and spinning off, rather than terminating?

Wouldn't you it think might not count as an account towards the audit threshold, if the guy is deemed to be only a "limited participant" as someone making a rollover before the regular eligibility kicks in? And hey, if the plan has forceout language which disregards rollover balances, easy enough to get him right back out, too.

The only time I ever got a "hey this 5330 is late, pay us more" notice was when it was late 401k deposits from 2-3 years prior, and the original 5330 amount was around $500. The penalty amount was around $90. Since most of the 5330s I would prepare were usually more like the $1 to $50 range, that's when any penalty amount would be extra dinky, and maybe that's why the IRS never seemed to care to send a penalty notice.

They can be - once they hit their year of service on 3/14/2022 they have six months to enter the plan so any DOP before 9/14/22 would be enough for you to be allowed to disaggregate them. But if you need them in the test, keep them in there at the 7.5% of 3,000

I think you're on the right track with the $225. No top heavy minimum from either plan is due. But, this person's also a statutory exclusion. If you run separate tests, they could get by possibly with only the 3% safe harbor on the 3,000.

You can do the algebra and solve it out perfectly, but trial and error generally works fine for one person. And then they'll end up with a nice round number like $2,000 because it was way too much work to math out the actual 1,992.73 you might have really only needed to allocate.

Did everyone get their NOIT and NOPB yet? Wondering if they can hide behind "we didn't do it right, so it doesn't count anyway."

Maybe he's referencing orphan match, rather than nonvested ACP excess. In any event, the actual reallocation of any forfeitures is determined by the plan document. Could be a yes. As for penalties, I suppose it's the usual - the IRS would have to find out first and this isn't the kind of issue that gives itself away.

I thought you could get a listing of all the returns coded as 2F.....or 2J. Did you click on the "Show Filters" option on the EFAST site?

That's right - an officer's kid doesn't suddenly end up a Key Employee the way an owner's kid can.

I suppose "Solo CB" is no more a marketing term than a "Solo 401(k)". If their document explicitly excludes anyone else but the owner/spouse, they could have a problem, but their plan might be using a "full-blown" document so it wouldn't matter for any practical purpose.

If you have no allocation conditions, then you don't get to exclude the terms under 501 hours. You can only exclude them if the hours/last day rules are the SOLE reason the participant isn't benefiting. (That's different from the sponsor just choosing for them to be a zero even if the plan would allow something nonzero.)

First thought is whether or not any distribution was actually permitted under the terms of the plan. If that's a no, then the proceeds have to go back to the plan and the flowchart for the fix-it process ends up completely different.

*especially* if it's a uniform allocation formula for the 5% (as opposed to individual allocation classes, where everyone might be assigned an identical 5% but only if that's the way the sponsor wants it)

How are they still receiving the cash if that option was eliminated? What are the normal allocation conditions in the PS plan and are the folks getting cash now NOT getting PS? Feels pretty facts and circumstances as to whether or not this is still hiding as a deemed CODA.

Actually it's getting to 1000 hours, rather than the last day, to qualify for a DB plan's top heavy minimum. Even if they don't work enough to automatically qualify for a THM, they might end up needing something that large, anyway, to pass the 401a4, depending on what the owner is getting.