Bri

Could always look for a loophole in what they executed for the adoption after the end of the plan year. Maybe they didn't check a box they should have about it applying as a retroactive adoption, that kind of thing. (Checks open palm, no sign of straws affirmatively grasped.)

Just to throw the idea out there - I'd like to find out how such a scenario aligns with the new benefit overpayment rules of secure2. (Yeah I know, I could do a bunch of reading, but maybe someone else already knows for sure.)

Are you looking to change how to pro-rate excess assets upon PLAN termination, or is it a case where you're looking to only pay the 12/31/23 hypothetical account balances and not 11 months' worth of the interest crediting rate for 2024 (for the participant's termination of employment)?

I vote for 8/22, since as of his rehire date three months had elapsed and his normally scheduled entry date of 6/1 had also.

Aside from showing enough in wages to justify the 415(c) level, the amount contributed as after-tax prior to Rothification wouldn't typically also be listed.

Simplified Employee Pension, funded with IRAs

This sounds like the plan's fine but her take-home pay was done wrong.

Should we pile on some "are there any LTPTs?" while we're workshopping this?

Your plan document will also say whether or not everyone can be allocated "something different" compared to a uniform formula (same percentage, typically)

Hey, if the taxes were extended until 10/15/2024 it's still not too late yet to allocate annual additions for the 12/31/2023 plan year. Also, the types of contributions already made might provide a little more into what he's on the hook for, relating to the employee.

Changing Schedule H upon their request immediately takes the "independence" of the audit to the woodchipper, doesn't it?

Reference the definition of compensation as spelled out in the plan document. See if the guy's then *officially* full of poo.

Yes, but wouldn't their parents have gotten the tax deduction for having the kid born by year-end?

It's way more fun when you realize the prior TPA your bosses just bought was using ERISA pre-approved documents for governmental plans.

I'm hinting that it's not well laid out but there are reasonable interpretations of what to do...

I would think the excess above 4.5% is an operational error and not part of the testing, fixed separately. Then you run the test with actual 4.5% for him and see how the chips fall.

Gotta think this is a no - Won't the plan already have a definition for Years of Service and what periods count? And you're wondering if they can now cut that back?

One last thought - I do think Bill's argument is right - is that perhaps they run one final payroll for everyone on 10/31 so that it's captured before the re-organization plan kicks in.

Would it kill them (okay, inconvenience them more than appropriate) to change the term date to 11/3?

Either bring them in the DC.....or increase their DB accrual up to the gateway equivalent since it's probably not high enough to start with in the first place? Maybe check if these people are short-service enough to run in a disaggregated set of tests for the otherwise excludable? (Trying to think how the DB got the easier eligibility to get into, so maybe they use something less than the 410a max.)

It could just be a post-tax annuity, too, which means the purchase of the annuity was used with more than enough plan funds to satisfy the plan RMD.

yeah, so if they do unfreeze down the road, you'd pull that code. Otherwise you might sort of visualize it as just an ongoing plan with a 0% formula for everyone - you do everything else like you'd "normally do".

Same as any other plan, but code 1I (one-eye, depending on your font)

Should be, since the key point is whether or not the plan itself doesn't pass without aggregation. If the DB plan were the only plan, and it was frozen, nobody would be benefiting at all and therefore wouldn't need another plan to help it pass.

I'd say it depends on whether either plan needed the other to pass its tests. With the DB frozen, that sounds like its return should answer no. And unless the DC testing required prior benefit accruals under the DB plan like on an accrued-to-date test, that plan probably should answer no as well, thinking it's passing for 2023 as a standalone plan.