Bri

I believe that's a yes.

My favorite way to find the table is to Google "new uniform lifetime table", and then switch to the Images part of the results.

I think if you issue the 1099-R for 2021 and show the uncashed check as corresponding asset/liability on the BOY 2022, then the participant no longer is part of the 2022 count. If you're not showing the assets netting to zero, then the person's still a participant and should get his 1099 for 2022 instead of 2021. I suppose.

If they're getting a 2021 1099-R for the as-yet uncashed check I wouldn't consider to count them as 1/1/22 participants. My innate sense of consistency, more than anything else.

On the bright side, I'd think that final 5500 should show 0 participants even at BOY, and with BOY assets/liabilities netting to zero, while EOY assets/liabilities being actual zeroes.

I just thought of one - once your balance goes over the forceout limit (of 3,500!) you can never be forced out later even if your balance/PVAB drops below the threshold.

I would suspect they'd have to re-sign updated pages with 2022 as the effective date, and double-check that they didn't inadvertently have any changed provisions that needed a 12/31/21 signature date. And yet, if this were a brand new plan (absent salary deferrals) it would be fine, right? Hmmmm......

How about, partnership match amounts count as deferrals?

I'm imagining Derrin Watson singing that as lyrics - got a melody for it?

Loved that one, my first pension job had my prior, non-pension, employer as a client so I got to see myself aggregated with my dad as an HCE (even though I maybe earned 15k) in the ADP/ACP tests!

Happened to walk by my old DC-2 study guide and saw those words flip by and wondered if I remembered what it meant. Luckily yes. Anyone got any favorite no-longer-rules they miss? 415(e) perhaps?

I thought I saw something that the 4R isn't yet required for another year, too. But I would suggest considering whether the participant is making one election (I want exactly my RMD amount every year starting now) versus the ad hoc (gotta italicize the Latin!) way that I too am more used to seeing.

And why wouldn't you want to hire Americans to do American work?

In past years there were only 4 employees to worry about. The terminee in question is one of those four. If I disaggregate, I've got 2 NHCEs by themselves, neither benefiting, though. Then the statutory group is still the 2 out of 4. But the language of the regulation doesn't seem like I get a pass on the otherwise-excludable group, because nobody benefits at all in that "plan".

Dang, I thought I had this figured out by disaggregating out the two statutory exclusions, but I can't tell what the 401(a)(26) regulations mean by the plan the otherwise excludable employees benefit under. There is no plan (those meeting 410a, or those in early) under which they benefit, but the disaggregated "plan" WOULD be the one they'd benefit from, ya know, if the formula weren't currently zero.

This cash balance plan (half of a combo) had 6 eligible employees during the year. One of them terminated with fewer than 500 hours. And the plan requires 1000 hours for an accrual. Seems easy....but, the plan has separate classes for the contribution credits, and her class always gets zero. Did she fail to accrue solely based on the lack of hours? She does get 415 participation credit for prior years even without an actual benefit, since she had the hours before 2021. So I'm back to at least thinking "maybe". (The two principal employees benefiting, out of either 5 or 6 employees, obviously are different outcomes for the test.) Does the answer change if the plan is amended to provide any nonzero amount for a new class just for her, even though she won't accrue it? Thanks! --bri

I vote for 2, since often when spoken aloud, they are the stressed syllables. "Those salary deferrals are technically employ-ER contributions rather than employ-EE contributions."

Are you referring to the ADP/ACP tests, or general coverage/nondiscrimination? For coverage and the average benefits test, doing two tests mean the statutory exclusions, both HCE and NHCEs, get tested separately from everyone else. For the ADP test, you have two choices. a) Do the exact same division, running two sets of tests b) Do a "carve-out" - That's where the excludable NHCEs are left completely out of the one test you'll run. But any excludable HCEs stay in the test with all the HCEs who had already met the statutory 1 year/21 requirements

The EOB has an explanation of "dual status" in the coverage section. It sounds as though it addresses hours of service in a non-union capacity specifically and the pay associated with those.

Agreed. (I'll have to verify with our forms folks...)

Thanks - 415 isn't an issue. So I did basically 180 myself, and realize the 10cc amount governs the 417e conversion, even if the separate life conversion would have a higher underlying 417e value.

It's that the plan's AE table of factors doesn't govern the lump sum payment, just the conversion to other annuities. I'm concerned I might be erroneously applying the 415 methodology (where you have to convert anything different to the SLA to check the maximum) to 417e. So you're saying that I apply 417e to the life annuity amount even if it's higher than 417e as applied to the normal form. (thanks!)

Quick question - Plan has its own table to convert the normal form of "10 years certain + life" to other forms, including single life annuity. For 417 purposes, do I do the lump sum first by: a) Convert 10cc to life via the plan factors, and then convert the life amount to lump at 417 rates, or b) Convert 10cc to lump with 417e factors, but convert 10cc to life separately with plan factors (even though the lump sum value of that life annuity would be different?) Thanks in advance (and presume the plan's AE factors aren't going to override 417 minimums) --Bri

Sometimes plans will allow in-service distributions, and a subset of those will allow them specifically/solely for RMD purposes. That could open up the opportunity to withdraw at least an RMD amount if not more.

I agree with Bird - the "year" in question probably refers to the RMD year, as opposed to a plan year. As for finding out, I suppose it would be part of the year-end data collection questionnaire to confirm ownership, and if anything has indeed changed, then you'd go back to confirm dates of the ownership changes.