Bri

If the two firms didn't form a controlled group (including the laxer criteria for 415 purposes) then this would be fine to do. My old firm once had a client where a guy owned several restaurants but had a different partner for each one and it allowed him the 415c limit several times over.

In. Especially if you said he's actually receiving a 2021 allocation. Which he should, as that's still "415 compensation" for 2021 under your plan's definition. Definitely not excludable, since there are no allocation requirements to receive a contribution.

I think you're fine - "It's not discriminatory to stop discriminating."

Probably, if it's being issued under Code E for an EPCRS-related correction.

Thanks, Luke - That's what I was finding as well, that it only seems to get "mentioned" relating to 415. Was hoping indeed I just wasn't missing something.

Hi folks. Doctor does some 403(b) deferrals at the hospital. But he also has his own practice. (No deferrals for him there.) I know that the 403(b) deferrals count against the 415(c) limit under the practice's profit sharing plan. But would they also get included in the 401(a)(4) average benefits percentage test for the practice's cash balance and 401(k)/profit sharing plans? Thanks. --Bri

Part VI, #13 on the premium filing form allows you to indicate a final filing, with a checkbox to indicate why. I would assume some filing's due for the part of the year for the time it wasn't governmentally sponsored, right?

I suggest skimming EPCRS for the specifics on getting an Overpayment returned back to a DC plan. If that too was rolled over to the IRA it's an ineligible rollover contribution, so the participant has a reason to at least fix *that* part of it.

I'd think that'd be enough - the last thing you want is to file a 5500-EZ for a 002 and make the IRS inquire as to why there has never been (not even a final filing) a 001.

To be fair, the original poster liked having those PS amounts in his testing - seemed like he was happy to run just one test rather than disaggregating.

If anything, you'd only multiply the FT by the 1.5, not all of the terms there. Of course there are other factors that can be involved, but in a simple case those might be all zero.

I bet the plan's document itself also is going to prohibit this. I wonder if the attorneys are thinking DB plan reversion....

Nah, that's not *too* different from a standardized prototype's "500 hours OR last day" provision. But sure, why "almost" guarantee 410(b) will pass, but require the 1000 instead?

I don't think there's a difference in that case. If the match formula applies to regular plus catchup deferrals, then you still determine if there's "related" match on the overall amount, not the amount that was the net number in the ADP test itself.

415 limits for DB plans are discussed at 1.415(b)-1 (This won't help illustrate the calculation turning their pay credit into the accruing benefit to compare it to one's limit, though.)

Yes, you'd include everyone, and so it sounds like everyone'll be getting gateway.

You have to pass your testing after the plan amendment, based on whatever the lowest eligibility was that let those three people in early. If they were let in immediately on hire, then the one HCE and 8 NHCEs from group B who weren't let in are non-benefiting but non-excludable. If you let the three folks in early after, say, 6 months and age 19, then those are the parameters for your coverage testing. And some from group B may not be benefiting (we know of three who are) but you no longer can exclude those from the testing itself. But some even-more-newly-hired folks from group B may be just as excludable now, too, because they wouldn't have met the more lenient parameters you let those three slide on.

If you throw your numbers out here, one of us can probably spot-check and find your discrepancy.

That's okay to do. DB plan still shows it as a code G rather than H since it didn't start as a Roth account when it left.

Here's a clip from 1.410(b)-7: (3) Plans benefiting otherwise excludable employees. If an employer applies section 410(b) separately to the portion of a plan that benefits only employees who satisfy age and service conditions under the plan that are lower than the greatest minimum age and service conditions permissible under section 410(a), the plan is treated as comprising separate plans, one benefiting the employees who have satisfied the lower minimum age and service conditions but not the greatest minimum age and service conditions permitted under section 410(a) and one benefiting employees who have satisfied the greatest minimum age and service conditions permitted under section 410(a). See § 410(b)-6(b)(3)(ii) for rules about testing otherwise excludable employees. Since elapsed time doesn't require the 1000 hours, your plan doesn't use the greatest minimum age and service conditions permitted, and so I think you've got an excludable there.

It's not that you would have to let "everyone else" into the plan, it's just that you have to use the most liberal eligibility provisions in your coverage tests, so suddenly you'd potentially be facing several other non-benefiting folks if they were indeed not also let in. (But then hey all these folks might be tested as otherwise excludables, too....)

There's a "paper's okay" exception if the sponsoring company doesn't file more than 250 returns of any kind, I believe.

Does the short plan year affect anything that's trying to be accomplished - does the plan define the limitation year as the plan year, or as the calendar year, for instance?

The statutory definition in 410(a)(3) references 1000 hours in the 12 months. I think he's still excludable if you can prove he hasn't done that. The plan's definition of a year of service isn't relevant for testing, other than who's a participant or not.

I'd say yes, he's in your test and needs gateway. But if you test otherwise excludables separately, then perhaps he's not in a test with HCEs. No gateway needed in that scenario, just a one-plan THM.