Bri

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.

Is it related (or "orphan") match, perhaps? An example is a plan that matches 50% on the first 6%. If your ADP test refunds brought someone's deferrals down below 6%, then they don't get to have the match associated with the refunded 401(k). That's different than an ACP refund, though, where you're supposed to apply the vesting percentage. In this case it's a forfeiture meant to prevent the HCE from having a net higher rate of match than anyone else.

1. Confirm plan was actually terminated by company action, like a resolution. So that 2019 is really the last year of the plan, rather than it continuing to exist with $0 assets. 2. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/penalty-relief-program-for-form-5500-ez-late-filers has the steps for what/how to file and pay the much cheaper penalty.

The basic gist explained in that Sal section (including crossing plan years) is how and for what year you count the compensation as 415 earnings. If that's 415 compensation for 2021 then you'd include her in your 2021 test.

Was it a matter of there being no such question they *could* have answered as "individual groups", or did they just not find that question and tried to replicate that type of provision elsewhere in the AA?

I've wondered, too, why nobody's brought this up for confirmation via public comments to the IRS. Seems like plans offering both would have to pay double compared to those that only allow pre-tax.

And then I suppose it becomes a reportable issue on Form 5500, as a failure to provide a benefit payment when due (10f on the 5500-SF)

I'm just spitballing here, feel free to shake me out of the tree. If the plan holds all the stock to the sponsoring company, then if late deferrals are still commingled with the sponsor's general assets.....

If they later turn out to be a 415 violation, correct them thusly.

You mention all NHCEs....my first reaction was to think of the match formula as a BRF issue.

The decision maker is neither HCE nor Key, yet has a plan balance?

And the thing is, in a smallish company, you can't just hide the names/SSNs and show the math of the test to the person. They're gonna know who's who. Is the COO going to ask the IRS to audit the plan? "We could provide a QNEC instead, but it's reducing your bonus."

Why do I remember a conference with someone saying that's likely an improperly issued W-2? Anyway, what if you added the W-2 amount AND the underlying SE taxes associated with it back to her K-1 number. That way you're calculating the exact SE tax she would have had deducted had all the income been run through the K-1 in the first place. She may have overpaid her FICA in the final analysis.

I sorta remember this is where the sponsor has the option to leave out the ADP safe harbor portion of the match from the ACP test, although the full details are fuzzy.

Just one caveat - confirm 9/30 is the last valuation date within calendar year. If you have a daily val plan you do have to use the 12/31 value even though it's not the plan year end.

I had meant if everyone was in their own group AND there were no other allocation conditions. Sure, if there's still a last day/1000 hour rule, then a T<500 couldn't have been allocated to his/her group anyway, because the allocation conditions preemptively excluded him/her from consideration. So in that case they are still excludable from coverage/401a26. But with no allocation conditions, the T<500 would still be eligible to get a contribution, and so the reason they wouldn't have is because the employer specifically chose to allocate zero.

I'd say no. You get to exclude T<500s if there are allocation conditions for receiving an allocation, and those conditions are the *sole* reason the participant doesn't benefit.

Gotcha. "They work it out."

Isn't a partner the only one who can take the deduction for his/her own contribution, while the partnership agreement covers each partner's share of the staff's cost?

I've not had that scenario, but it's intriguing that they're stuck having to make a contribution for themselves.

401(k)(10) - the rule is specific to 401(k) plans having successors.

What's the actual deemed distribution date? Anything received after that is basis for later.

I'd say it all goes to suspense, contributions and earnings. Company already contributed it, just mis-allocated it.

It's 155. You either add the 135 from box 1 plus the 401(k), or you take the 140 from box 5 and add the Sub-S health. (disclaimer about there may be other deferrals like 125 plan stuff)

Gotcha - I wouldn't have thought to close the window at a time specifically earlier than those final annuity purchases. But yeah, you don't want someone showing up at the office with LS election paperwork the day you're trying to transfer the funds for the annuities!