Bri

Failure to distribute the related match ends up as a 401a4 issue, though, right? It's not really a corrective distribution occurring when it's simply the match being forfeited. Not sure if that buys you any extra time beyond 3/15 though.

Only the 50,000 statutory maximum gets reduced by the highest balance in the previous 12 months. You don't do that same lookback with smaller loan amounts. Those just have the usual 50% limitation.

Does the document spell out what to use? If the document gives you the leeway to use any 414s compensation, then sure, you MAY limit 414s to only periods of participation. (You don't have to, but you have to be uniform for all employees.) If you have separate participation comps (and a hearty "Blam!" to anyone who's forced that upon you) then I suppose you'd use the participation comp relevant to exactly what you're testing for. If you're testing the gateway then you're measuring nonelective contributions by the employer, so use the participation date applicable to getting nonelective contributions under the plan.

I think that's in reference to a missed participant, not a missed change by an existing participant.

Sounds like a reasonable correction method....

I think that's fine, actually. Lord knows, we always talk here about how they want a 5500 even when there were no participants or assets the ENTIRE year. It's their sandbox and if you have less than 100 on day 1, you get a pass on the audit. If they wanted the audit requirement based on the EOY head count, they should have said so.

That seems crazy, like you're just giving the guy an extra $1,000 because of the data entry error.

Did the form itself indicate its effective date? Did the employee indicate when submitting the form when it was meant to take effect? Does the Plan Administrator otherwise enact elections upon receipt? (Kinda hoping you can find a way that this was an improperly executed/processed form.)

When is the sponsor's tax return due, and will they go on extension? That will determine a lot of the answers.

I think the carve-out rule is technically separate from the normal disaggregation rules. So if you're willing to throw any otherwise-excludable HCEs in to your statutory ADP test, then you technically haven't disaggregated for coverage, nor discrimination testing.

Nope, those are 415(c)-induced catchup contributions. Which then excludes them from the test.

and if they want a true-up, it's easy enough to code software to do it on a recurring basis every week using "year-to-date minus prior" or your system's equivalent language.

all related CG/ASG entities, or just a multiple employer plan? That affects some of the consequences obviously....

Isn't there a spot in the ASC software to program the "meaningfulness" at whatever level you want, with it defaulting as 0.5%

Is that just for Subchapter S, or could a C-corp. legitimately pay its owners $0 ?

maybe just Secure 2.1, currently in beta....

You can forfeit them, they weren't supposed to have those allocations in the first place. Put the plan in the position it would have been if it had been done correctly, and so those ineligible folks still end up with $0.

The ADP test measures for discrimination the deferrals for everyone eligible to defer. The lack of compensation made these people ineligible to defer, so I leave them out.

7.5% is usually the highest the gateway has to go, but your testing numbers will determine if a lower gateway applies.

I think it counts in the testing, unless you can also show it's also a 415 excess because of extra-large profit sharing. But it would take me an hour to dig to find where I got that from.

That's right - think about if this were really two separate plans, the same methodology applies. It might even be a little more obvious because those 5 NHCEs really would be zeros in "plan A" rather than just treated as being part of "component B".

Well whatever they've done seems to have broken DB transaction processing.

Wait, even though they're in a different component, they're still going to be measured for the rate groups as non-benefiters.

The trick is to keep track of which Code section's attribution rules govern which determinations. For CGs it's 1563 and so that's where the "minor child" trip-up has happened so often they finally legislated it out in Secure 2.

Might as well.....and he can exclude HCEs from the SH if he doesn't want to feel it's even mandatory for himself.