WCC

Are the following three assumptions accurate (1) the plan document is written with a pay period match formula (no true up) (2) the document is written to not match catch up contributions (catch up being defined under 414(v)) (3) the document is not written to say something to the effect of... "deferral amounts attributable to the election entered under the "catch up election box" are not matched"? If so, my thoughts are as follows" How is the deferral form written? Does it say your deferral election under this election stops when the catch up limit is reached? besides that, I don't have a great answer If the assumptions above are correct, then I think you likely have a problem. Let's say your match formula is 100% on 6%. Your pay period match formula should be set up as follows: match = ((the lesser of ("regular deferral" % + "catch up" deferral %) or 6%)*capped eligible wages)) with match capped at $20,700 for 2024. The dollars contributed under the "catch up election" are not catch up dollars until they are and should be matched until they become catch up. Just because they are made under a "catch up" election doesn't make them catch up. If the match formula is set up to not include the catch up election, then you may get lucky on some participants who are still correct. For example, if the participant had a 6% "regular" election and a 4% "catch up" election, then the match will be calculated correctly for that pay period even though the formula is wrong. But if someone has a 4% "regular" election and a 2% "catch up" election, then the match is short (until the catch up actually becomes a catch up). Side note - I am not a fan of dual elections for these reasons. I think it is much easier to manage one election and monitor the limits via payroll. Especially with 1.1.2026 changes.

A 401k plan allows for voluntary employee contributions (i.e. after-tax) and the plan matches voluntary employee contributions. Are there any regulations that would stop an employee from making voluntary employee contributions, receiving the match, then taking a withdrawal of the voluntary employee contributions the next day? Essentially a strategy of obtaining the match then getting their contribution back immediately. I understand the document would have to allow it and ACP testing needs to be passed, but is there a regulation that say's this cannot be done? Thanks

The auditors we work with look at every period on a spreadsheet to determine the number of days it took for each withholding to be deposited. If they determine the company can reasonably make the deposit within say 3 days, then that is the standard for that company. No, nor should they.

Here is a recent chat that may help.

Just trying to learn here for my own knowledge, but is this above statement correct? IRS notice Q&A-8 of Notice 2013-74 talks about the 5-year clock, but does this mean it starts over with every conversion? I was under the impression there was only one 5 year clock per participant in the plan, but maybe I am wrong. I could not find anything directly on point in the EOB. If someone were converting after-tax to Roth immediately every period, or converting PS dollars every year to Roth, they would have a new 5-year clock with every conversion? Curious of your thoughts.

here is the regulation cite if helpful. Treas. Reg. §1.401(m)-3(j)(6)

No, they do not. HCEs don't receive any special treatment when it comes to deposit timing. Are you asking about self employed individuals? If so, then this thread may help.

Unless the plan documents says otherwise, this paragraph from the preamble to the 415 regs is what I have relied on when this question comes up. You are not required to count compensation on a FIFO type accounting basis. https://www.federalregister.gov/d/E7-5750/p-111 "As noted above, the final regulations provide that a plan cannot take into account compensation in excess of the section 401(a)(17) limit. In addition, the final regulations provide that elective deferrals can only be made from compensation as defined in section 415(c)(3). However, in applying these two rules, a plan is not required to determine a participant's compensation on the basis of the earliest payments of compensation during a year."

Can't you just force them out to an IRA due to plan termination under Treas. Reg. §1.411(e) regardless of the existing threshold?

Asking about employer contributions such as match, profit sharing, etc.

Is anyone aware of a tax change (effective 2024) requiring employers to pay FMLA and unemployment taxes on employer contributions for the year the contribution is made for residents of Massachusetts only? Google searching did not result in any answers to confirm if this inquiry is indeed accurate. Thank you

I will attempt to answer this. The participant loan is a plan asset and earns interest which just happens to be paid by the participant. The interest is a plan asset since it is earned on a plan asset. In this case, the loan is part of the participant directed account so the participant is choosing how the funds are "invested" and the participant is earning interest on their loan asset. When payments are made to the plan, the cash buys shares of the TDF. So in your example the $1800 of interest buys shares of the TDF in the participants account. it is similar to any other investment in the plan. If you own a mutual fund that pays dividends, those dividends are reinvested in your account and they buy more shares of the investment.

Traditional 401k plan has an ACA feature with auto escalation (not EACA nor QACA). Plan is a calendar year plan but auto escalation occurs on July 1 to coincide with pay raises. Plan provides annual ACA and escalation notice between 30 - 90 days before the beginning of the plan year. Question - since the escalation takes effective later than 90 days after the annual notice is given, is a second notice required to be given later in the year? I have searched the EOB and these boards, but can only find notice references when the escalation occurs on the first day of the plan year. I am thinking a second notice should be given, but am getting push back to prove it. Thanks

I am having trouble finding guidance on this and hoping someone can point me in the right direction. Participant took a $100,000 CARES Act distribution in 2020. Proceeds came from: Roth deferral = $50,000 Pretax deferral = $25,000 Match = $25,000 Participant makes a repayment of $100,000 in 2023. In to what sources are the funds deposited at the time of repayment? Roth = $50,000, Pretax = $25,000, Match = $25,000? Or Roth Rollover $50,000, Pretax Rollover $50,000? Some other method? Thank you

If the error had not occurred, would she have received match? If so, then she should receive 100% of the match that she would have received had the error not occurred. (Rev Proc 2021-30 Appendix A Section .05)

5 year clock starts the year the first Roth contribution and/or conversion is made in the 401k. Keep in mind if he satisfies the 5 year rule in the 401k, then rolls to a brand new/newly opened Roth IRA, the 5 year clock starts over.

Hello, As we know, SECURE 1.0 and SECURE 2.0 increased the RMD age. Let's say a DB plan kept their distribution age at 70.5 and continues to pay mandatory distributions at 70.5. Let's assume a participant turned age 70.5 in 2023 and the DB plan will pay the first "RMD" by April 1, 2024. Can a participant roll that payment to an IRA and avoid taxation since the plan is forcing the distribution sooner than they otherwise are required to? Does by virtue of the plan keeping the RMD age at 70.5 make this an RMD? Or does the participant have any individual choice to roll it since it is paid before 73? Thank you for your thoughts.

I am not a fan of filing without the audit, but I may be in the minority. Below is a great discussion of this question.

Please consider the following: Calendar year DC plan with a non-elective discretionary employer contribution. The plan document is written with the following allocation condition to receive the non-elective: "To be eligible to receive such Non-elective Contribution, the Participant must be employed by the Company on the date the Company makes the Non-elective Contribution." The plan administrator will fund the contribution on March 1, 2024 for the 2023 plan year to only eligible participants actively employed on March 1, 2024. This is a new one for me, I was under the impression that you could not have an allocation condition beyond the end of the plan year. Am I wrong? Do the regulations allow for this type of allocation condition? Or can the word "makes" be interpreted differently (e.g. "makes" means the plan year to which it is allocated, or does it mean the date money is deposited to the plan)? Thank you!

Are you suggesting they remove the class exclusion for both deferrals and match? If so, those working <1000 hours will be eligible to receive the match once they meet the 3 month eligibility condition and reach their entry date. If participants become eligible for deferrals and match under the 3 month elapsed time rules, they are not LTPTs. If you are suggesting they amend to allow all employees to defer after 3 months elapsed time and keep the 1000 requirement for match (e.g. dual eligibility or allocation conditions), then I think you have to test the plan as you would any other plan with dual eligibility or allocation conditions.

If they had less than 100 participants on the first day of the plan year, why would an audit for 2022 be required? I am a bit hesitant and confused because Bill is always right, so I must be missing something. Or is this question related to the 2023 audit requirement?

What was the participant count as of the beginning of the plan year?

similar discussion here:

Thanks for the responses. This is a 401k plan with a discretionary match, no profit sharing, individual account balances, daily valued. The plan allows in-service distributions from all sources at age 59.5 or upon termination of employment.

This is in relation to a DC plan, deferral and match sources. The HR individual inadvertently entered a termination date for an active participant. Participant receives a notice from the recordkeeper stating you are eligible for a distribution and participant cashes out 100% of the balance. Participant was 100% vested, age 35, not an owner, not a Key, not an HCE, all funds in the account were correctly calculated. Do you think the SECURE 2.0 overpayment rules are cut and dry to let this distribution go without any action by the administrator? Or do you think we are waiting for guidance and should consider following the prior rule? Or maybe would you say this is not the definition of "overpayment" as defined by EPCRS? Thank you