Mr Bagwell

Why would you want to do that? Keep the SH 401k.

The Relius document has a section that you can choose to exclude the seasonal, part time, temporary, etc.... however, you must take into consideration that if they work 1000 hours the employee would become eligible. this is in addition to the 90 days entry requirement. I don't know what document you are using but read it. maybe you have a similar available option. I feel you might be too late to implement this year.

Is the question "One of the terminated plans failed their ADP. Since all participants have moved their money how can the correction be done?" If so, ugh..... Technically, I don't know if the money has to be returned to the plan to issue ADP refunds. However, the tax records have to be corrected. Hopefully the distributions happened in 2024?

No Top Heavy is required when there are no contributions to KEY employees. No confusion..... you're doing good.

"Poise counts!!!" I"m with Bri..... grrrr..... Safe harbor plan?

Bird, that really sucks. I've been around the TD space for years, but have not had to interact with them for a while due to job role. I have asked my co-workers that have TD logins to see if they still have access and they still do...... Accounts are showing closed, but can still get to statements. Being that you said someone still had access TD.... did they try to type the name into the search bar? We found some "old", terminated participants in there still.... Try calling 1-866-423-2683. The number works and is listed as a Schwab number now. Maybe you can get lucky and get to someone helpful that can search by the plan EIN or tax number and back track into the "purged" accounts. Good Luck

"Any disagreement on that?" No. I agree with your assessment. I do have a question... why was there a necessity to give the HCEs (which were also the KEYs) a TH? Just a confusion as to the TH rules?

And then clearly the employer is not balancing the books, because the extra 1000 should stick out like a sore thumb!!

How much money we talking about?

My brain is telling me that the PS to anyone is requiring that TH rules to kick in. Therefore, the non-KEY employees are going to need 3% from the Employer. Because I don't think there is such an exemption. Just my quick two cents.....

All this scenario for a PS to the only NHCE that could get a PS? Wow!!

I feel your pain Albany, I had a dual eligibility safe harbor match and two of the owners wife's deferred 70 to 80% of pay right away..... no catch up available....and then losses on top of that for the year. I refunded them alot of money. It was bad. A compromising approach could have been a single eligibility of a 6 months wait. This would have solved much headache.

An ADP test and possibly ACP is required because those with the 1 year wait are not able to get the Safe Harbor contribution. Therefore, it's not fully a Safe Harbor plan for all employees. It's only a Safe Harbor plan for those that meet the eligibility requirements to receive the Safe Harbor. I like to try to keep my Safe Harbor plans to single eligibility expressly for this reason. In my opinion the dual eligibility design ruins the efficiency of a Safe Harbor plan.. especially the plan that only does deferrals and safe harbor contributions. I don't want to work that hard inside a Safe Harbor plan. And then, with dual eligibility safe harbor, I have to concern myself with Top heavy, did a KEY employee come into the plan and defer a percentage that will require refunds. To some extent, I am thinking harder about Safe Harbor plans than I am with a non-safe harbor plan. We all have to be really sharp on the Safe Harbor plans. There are some pitfalls that we don't want to fall into.

Andrew, I understand your concern that you did not get all the money in the 401k you were expecting. However, the funds that were supposed to go into the plan you received as cash compensation. In other words, you received the pay AND received a 50% QNEC. Seems like a scenario I could live with. If there was any missed match, you would have received 100% to the plan also. You are correct that the QNEC is a Pre-Tax. The Pre-Tax QNEC is per IRS code, so no choice in the matter. I hope I have answered your questions. If not, let us know. Thanks

3 for us today. IRS said a glitch..... good times.

We posted at the same time Bri... I would agree with 1/1/2022 if term date was 8/25/2021. Here is the language in our document. I would guess other documents are similar. This is one of those sections that you just have to commit to understand and memorize.... just my two cents. It comes up more than I want it to. Rehired Eligible Employee Who Had Satisfied Eligibility. An Eligible Employee who satisfies the Plan's eligibility conditions, but who incurs a Separation from Service prior to becoming a Participant, subject to any Break in Service rule, if applicable, under Section...., will become a Participant on the later of: (1) the Entry Date on which he/she would have entered the Plan had he/she not incurred a Separation from Service; or (2) his/her Re-Employment Commencement Date.

Is this the right fact pattern? Maybe 8/25/2021 DOT?

No Roth, no catch-ups for those under the 145,000 (indexed) prior comp? I was under the impression the less than 145,000 COULD have catch-ups in a non roth plan.....

Both are good. I would go with the EOB first. 8 volumes of information. The 401k answer book is good. It just has less information as it is a single volume. (or at least the last one we have is....) The last thought is I probably wouldn't spend the money on either as of today.... too much info to add from Secure and Secure 2.0. And your purchase would be out of date. I would spend the money on a subscription to Erisapedia as it is web based and more up to date.

Thanks Bri!

My situation is really a Failure to implement an employee election. The failure was that while a deferral was being done, it was the wrong percentage. It still appears that the total of QNEC plus deferrals are limited to 402g limit. (5) Failure to implement an employee election. (a) Missed opportunity for elective deferrals. For eligible employees who filed elections to make elective deferrals Page 88 of 140 under the Plan which the Plan Sponsor failed to implement on a timely basis, the Plan Sponsor must make a QNEC to the plan on behalf of the employee to replace the “missed deferral opportunity.” The missed deferral opportunity is equal to 50 percent of the employee’s “missed deferral.” The missed deferral is determined by multiplying the employee’s elected deferral percentage by the employee’s compensation. If the employee elected a dollar amount for an elective deferral, the missed deferral would be the specified dollar amount. The employee’s missed deferral amount is reduced further to the extent necessary to ensure that the missed deferral does not exceed applicable plan limits, including the annual deferral limit under § 402(g) for the calendar year in which the failure occurred. The QNEC must be adjusted for Earnings to the date the corrective QNEC is made on behalf of the affected employee.

Thanks, C.B.!! I was missing something.... appreciate the help.

Employer did not setup payroll correctly for deferrals at beginning of 2023. I am working on the EPCRS fix. The scenario: The employee intends to get to 30,000 deferrals for 2023. So the employee would likely get full deferrals for 2023 plus a QNEC for the Employer error. This feels a little funky to me, but I am fine with it otherwise. I'm not aware of any reduction of deferral limit because the EPCRS fix was done. Am I missing anything?

Yup! Good answer Belgarath! You added some terminology that I wanted to use, but could not find a simply way to say it.

Mr. Dragon, You need to visit with your mentor/supervisor/trainer. You need some pension 101 gaps filled in. If a plan is truly abiding by the safe harbor rules, there will not be an ADP/ACP test. (I am assuming no dual eligibility) If you add a ProRata profit sharing into the equation, you will still not do an ADP/ACP test. (still assuming no dual eligibility) You just need to pass 401(a) coverage testing. New comparability/Cross Testing is a completely different animal when it comes to what tests need to be run. Volumes are written about cross testing..... there is really no short cut to knowledge about these plans. Good luck.