Belgarath

I have made the (not all all difficult) decision to retire at the end of this year. I have agreed to work a couple of days a week during the early part of next year to help out my employer while they hire a replacement, but it's a limited engagement. I'll be lurking on these boards for a while yet. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Dave and Lois for providing this magnificent resource - it has been a tremendous asset! I'd also like to thank all of you folks, past and present, for the invaluable assistance you have given to me over the years. I've certainly taken more than I've given, and your time, generosity, and expertise is appreciated more than you can ever know. It's not just the technical expertise, but the sounding board for discussions, sometimes griping (misery loves company) and humor in the face of statutory and regulatory foolishness that makes this such a great community. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors (I'm trying hard not to gloat) as you continue in this business, and I hope you all have a great Holiday season! Take care, and again, a heartfelt thanks!!!

Yes, I'd allow.

I hope you all have a great Thanksgiving, unsullied by productive thought. (We are having our meal on Saturday, as many family members can't make it tomorrow, so I'll be working tomorrow - great time to catch up on stuff with no phone/e-mails!)

I'm frequently surprised at the litany of reasons why some people may not want to be found (or accept payment). Divorce, separation, child support, legal or illegal debt, avoiding a stalker, it goes on and on... we had one where the former employee was collecting disability, and getting a payment from the plan would have reduced or eliminated her disability payment. It'll probably get worse now with the ICE crackdowns.

Not a CG on the face of it. But there could be other factors, like options to purchase the stock, etc., so recommend that they check with their attorney.

It isn't really possible to adequately describe the profound impact (all good!) that you have had during my career in this business. Congratulations on the "slowdown" - and from a purely selfish standpoint, we are delighted to hear that the teaching and the ASK will still be on the table for now. Best wishes!

THANKS PETER! This is very informative - I do appreciate it. I'm sometimes disgusted at how much I don't know after all these years in the business.

I agree. We've also had DOL audits (excuse me, "investigations" - we had a DOL "auditor" get snippy when we referred to her as an "auditor" rather than an "investigator") where the response was identical - "get a bond" - and no penalty was imposed.

Agree. See Peter's point below. I assumed not 50 by EOY, and you know what assuming can do...

At this point, going on nearly NO details - just a quick second-hand question based on a phone call from a plaintiff's attorney. We will of course be telling the client to talk with his legal counsel. But as much as I understand the situation so far: A participant terminated employment in 2023. He was an owner, and was bought out. Apparently, there is some sort of a lawsuit - the nature of which I have no idea, but the terminated participant is apparently getting some sort of settlement, and wants to know if he can contribute to the 401(k) for 2025 to save on taxes. The plaintiff's attorney wants to talk to us, apparently. This is way above my pay grade/knowledge, but I'd like to have some idea for my own background. I "think" I generally have an idea that a "restorative payment" which is determined under the facts and circumstances (Revenue Ruling 20something-25 - can't remember specific number) is not considered a contribution subject to 404, 415, etc., etc.) But this dealt with fiduciary breach-type situations as I recall. Assuming for the moment that this lawsuit is for other reasons, perhaps wage issues, unjust termination of employment, whatever, if the settlement is considered wages, then if he was still employed by the employer, he should be able to defer up to the normal limit. But, since he terminated in 2023 I don't believe he could defer into the plan. Could he? Please don't waste a lot of time on this, because as I said, it'll be handled by the client's ERISA attorney, and/or the plaintiff's attorney and/or tax counsel. But for my own edification, if you might have any quick general info based on your experience, I'd be grateful for anything you might care to share. We've been fortunate to never have run into this situation. Thanks! P.S. - The Revenue Ruling I was thinking of is old - 2002-45. No wonder I couldn't remember...

Special deluxe a la Peter T. Hooper.

I agree with Cuse. We tell them to keep everything forever, and if they want to do otherwise, (with or without their lawyer's advice) it is up to them.

Thanks for the info. (In this particular case, since they are all >5% owners, the top 20% election wouldn't help.)

I don't think you need to bother with IRS regulations. A plan must operate according to its terms, and this specific language does not appear to allow such an allocation, absent some additional "notes" in the AA or overriding language in the body of the document. Most of these HCE SH exclusions that I've seen have a short additional bit of language to the effect the discretionary contribution is for "any or all HCE's" or something like that. P.S. are you certain that you are looking at a Cycle 3 document? The slightly less flexible language in your excerpt, or similar language, was present in some Cycle 2 documents that I've seen. Then updated for Cycle 3.

Thanks Gentlemen. Very interesting.