Belgarath

We have them contact their insurance agent.

We have them contact their insurance agent.

Many employers like a self-certification regime when the consequence of a false statement is only that a participant uses one’s own resources.
But an employer might dislike a self-certification regime when the consequence of a false statement is that a worker gets the employer’s money.
And for employers that prefer a matching contribution over a nonelective contribution, letting a worker get a matching contribution without meeting its conditions might partly defeat one or more purposes about why the employer prefers a matching contribution.
That might be why some employers are considering using intermediaries or software to get some comfort that a worker likely made student-loan payments.

RBG and all others down there - keeping our fingers crossed for you! My cousin lives in Sarasota, and Helene left 3 feet of water in his house, and he was luckier than many. It doesn't sound good for this one. Be safe!!!
 

There can be reasons for a participant in an employment-based retirement plan to prefer it over an Individual Retirement Account.
Among them, opportunities for guarding a retirement asset from some kinds of creditors’ claims might be better with an employment-based plan (even if not ERISA-governed) than an IRA. This might be so not only under bankruptcy law, but also under other laws. As CuseFan suggests, there is no shortcut; one must get into the details of those laws and how they might apply to facts and circumstances the individual plans against.
The individual might want not only legal advice but also practical advice across her whole team of advisers, including lawyers (for each topic), certified public accountant, physician, actuary, financial planner, investment adviser, and TPApril.
This is not advice to anyone.

Thank you so much -- this area needs all the help we can get.  More info is coming out, and it just looks worse and worse; the toll both in lives and in economic loss is going to be staggering.
Samaritan's Purse is on the ground -- distributing food and water, setting up field hospitals, etc. Operation Airdrop has been in the air for two days -- helicopter is the only way to get to many locations The Y'all Squad -- they're buying and installing portable StarLink units; communication (even among first responders) is the biggest struggle right now.  
 

Many of you know that BenefitsLink is headquartered in the mountains of North Carolina.  Thankfully, we're safe and sound, albeit without cell service and primary internet (thank goodness for StarLink!).
Many around us are not.
We know that Florida and Georgia experienced significant damage. The mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee took a devastating hit. 
Over 2' of rain fell in a large swath of the NC mountains; the runoff put rivers at historic flood levels.  Power, cell and internet service are all down over a large area, roads are collapsed or otherwise impassable, and many homes and small towns are completely isolated -- or washed away. 
Two of the four interstate routes in/out of Asheville -- the two that cross the mountains to the west -- have washed out; a third route (to the east) is blocked in several places.
The damage is almost unbelievable -- and the affected area is almost the size of Massachusetts.
This area is not equipped or prepared for this level of catastrophic destruction.  Mountain people are self-reliant survivors, both individually and collectively, but this will be quite a stretch. 
It will be a long, difficult road forward. 
Please keep all in this area in your thoughts and prayers.  And if any of our BenefitsLink neighbors have been affected, please reach out on this thread - we'll do what we can to help.
Lois and Dave

FWIW - I think you can continue to use the exclusion, BUT, it cannot serve to exclude (from making deferrals) those students who work the 500-1,000 that you mention.

In order to be a safe harbor definition of comp, it has to include 125 deferrals as well as 401(k) deferrals. Box 5 is grossed up for 401(k) deferrals but not for 125 deferrals.

For all you folks who may be impacted, here's hoping you come through it with minimal effects. Best of luck!!

For all you folks who may be impacted, here's hoping you come through it with minimal effects. Best of luck!!

For all you folks who may be impacted, here's hoping you come through it with minimal effects. Best of luck!!

Don't think so, but also remember that neither spouse can be involved in the other's business for a control group to no longer exist. Sometimes, sponsors and/or their practitioners want there to be a CG and so create some cross-involvement to get there.

Well, we all know that complete disqualification (the death penalty) is not likely, so I'd drop that fear down to second place.
However, employees blaming their employer, at least initially, is very likely. Since taking personal responsibility is apparently considered anti-American in our society, the first course of action is to blame someone else. The fact that as an employee I didn't read the communication(s), or didn't question it if I didn't understand it, etc., is immaterial. (All right, I'm done with that rant.) And of course, there will also be many situations where the employer did not enroll people when they SHOULD have been enrolled.

Truer words wuz never spoke! It'll be ok for many employers, and others will botch it badly. Retirement looks more attractive all the time...

Truer words wuz never spoke! It'll be ok for many employers, and others will botch it badly. Retirement looks more attractive all the time...

I would also say that most of our employers have simply decided to allow all employees, regardless of hours, to make their own contributions (although part-timers may not be eligible for a match or nonelective contributions).  The cost of allowing employees to contribute their own money is typically less than the cost of keeping two or three years' worth of records of hours.

Consider that an answer might vary with whether the plan’s sponsor and administrator seek to meet only Internal Revenue Code § 403(b)(12)(A)(ii) or also seek to obey ERISA sections 202(c) and 203(b)(4).
Applicable or relevant law is ambiguous.
Forty comments on the Treasury’s proposed rule are available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/IRS-2023-0058-0001/comment.
Some comments flag your question as an open issue the Treasury’s proposed rule does not resolve. Likewise, some comments flag a coordination between tax law conditions and ERISA’s minimum-participation and minimum-vesting provisions as an open issue the Treasury’s proposed rule does not resolve.
Although some might guess the Treasury lacks power to interpret ERISA § 202(c) and 203(b)(4), the 1978 Reorganization Plan transfers that authority to the Treasury. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/laws/executive-orders/4.
But even if the Treasury publishes a final rule and no court vacates the rule, a Federal court does not defer to an executive agency’s interpretation of the statute.
An ERISA-governed plan’s administrator must administer the plan according to the plan’s governing documents or, to the extent a document is inconsistent with ERISA’s title I, ERISA’s title I. That might call for an administrator’s prudent interpretations of ERISA sections 202 and 203.
Different law applies for a governmental plan or for a church plan that did not elect to be ERISA-governed.

Re: ERISA 403(b) Plans:  We are still using the 20 hour exclusion for deferrals etc. when the sponsor requests, but informing the sponsor that it will be "overridden" by the LTPT rules.  It can be complex and messy.  We do discourage the use of the 20 hour exclusion because of LTPT but this argument is not acceptable to all sponsors who want to use it.  I know of no ruling that invalidates use of the 20 hour exclusion in the plan document.

This happens all the time.  I have never had the IRS follow up on a final EZ with $0 BOY assets.

Nah, I don't see the point to be honest.

At least some pre-approved documents provide for an "other" election for excluding participants from the Safe Harbor contribution, where they specify that it must be "an HCE, or" ............... so I don't see any prohibition about specifically naming an HCE as excluded. But I'll ask this - why? Given that documents can provide complete flexibility to exclude all HCE's, but make a "discretionary" Safe Harbor to "any or all" HCE's - what would be the point of limiting the flexibility by specifically naming one HCE?

☠️

☠️

Yeah, I've never EVER even SEEN a SAR distribution date even questioned. Doubtless I just jinxed myself...