Bri

I'd say not so much 90 days, but as of the end of the cure period for the missed payment (of the entire due/payable outstanding balance) under the plan's policy, often the end of the following quarter.

Plan document will have that spelled out, whether the match compensation is determined on the whole year, pay period to pay period, and/or only from one's participation date in the source.

No, SEPs are for everyone who was eligible. No last day (or 1000 hours) allowed. Usually the SEP may require 3 of the 5 prior years having above the IRS annual stated earnings (not hours) threshold, but that's how you can exclude newer or very part-time folks. And sometimes that costs the HCE itself being eligible. The SEP paperwork should let you liberalize the eligibility to be even easier (fewer past years required) but the idea is that they're simplified, everyone who met eligibility shares, and with a uniform rate (not going to go into an integrated SEP here).

I think that means that the you're okay because the correction amount is part of the overall total. But that's presuming you're saying this was a taxable cash payment. If the HCE did a rollover then the plan has still satisfied the requirement to distribute the corrective excess, but it would result in an ineligible rollover contribution.

They have the service for the sponsor but had been previously ineligible because they were a nonresident alien with no US source income? Sounds like they're likely immediately eligible upon the switch to an eligible class of employees.

Look at it as, 401(m) test money is 401(m) test money, regardless of if it's 401(k) match or after-tax or even a match based on the after-tax. I see no issue.

Well, inasmuch as such a plan with individual allocation classes "typically" has to cross-test. Your plan might not need to test, but it can't run afoul of the document's allocation rules. Maybe there's an out if you're stuck with pro rata, but the higher paid person hits 415 first such that the rest of the contribution has to go to remaining participants

That's going to depend on the allocation rules in the document. It should say how to split a contribution, or whether the employer determines individual specific amounts by individual classes.

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.