Mike Preston

No, I asked for an answer, not an opinion.

Yes. No.

As long as the document has that person in their own group, it doesn't violate ADEA, etc. and otherwise doesn't break any rules it should work.

Seems to me it should work, too.

OK, you've said what's on your mind. Do you have an answer to the original question?

No, gateway is not "required" for either NHCE in this circumstance (assuming you have every employee in their own group). As long as you can pass the non-discrimination test with one or the other receiving an employer non-elective contribution the other doesn't need to receive anything as far as gateway goes.

Do you think you could have spent MORE effort while COMPLETELY IGNORING the question being asked?

Welcome to our world.

... retroactively. Good luck with that.

Better review the successor plan rules to ensure there are no surprises.

Well, there are loan limits, Tom.

Get up on the wrong side of the bed? "should not be a state law"????

Much too simplistic. I think the standard or question is whether the state law has a material impact on the administration of an ERISA plan. By definition this means a facts and circumstances determination. And payroll procedures are generally considered to be the subject of state labor laws. I suppose the logic is that since the employer has to understand the payroll laws of those states it operates in in order to do payroll, there is, at most, an ancillary impact on plan administration.

Over the last 12 months.

Very funny.

Huh?

All of which relates to what has been previously described as the "latter" and with which I do not have a quibble. Thank you for clarifying the part I was quibbling with.

None of which addresses your original statement, which appears to be based on.... what? Your entire subsequent post addresses the 133 and 1/3 rule with which I have not a quibble.

I see no justification for the former, what 411 rule are you following? OTOH, I can't imagiine a flat percentage of pay failing the latter.

Cash balance plans are subject to the same anti-backloading accrual rules as other defined benefit plans.

I think the most accurate answer to such a broad question is: a little of each.

You misunderstand my application of 410(b). It is applied twice. The application with respect to deferrals is irrelevant. The application with respect to non-"401(k)-deferrals" is what I'm talking about. "I think the IRS biggest concern is providing a big cash balance to HCEs, then nothing (or just deferrals) in a DC plan, but being able to use their compensation toward the 6% maximum." It is clear that you can't do that.

Correct.

Anybody who includes comp from those who are NOT benefitting under 410(b) is simply hanging their client out to dry.

No, you can't.