Roxie99

Thanks for the responses - will wait until next year. To Nate, it's the latter.

Our plan currently has a discretionary true-up match with no allocation service requirements. Is it ok to amend the plan for the current plan year to add a last day of employment rule or do we have to wait until next year? We want to exclude terminated employees from receiving the true-up match for 2022, if the company decides to make one. Thanks.

Can we self-correct an operational failure in a terminated plan or is correction of such failure only available by going to the IRS via VCP per Section 4.07 of Rev. Proc. 2021-30. Section 4.07 doesn't say SCP is prohibited (unlike, for example, Section 4.08 which says SCP is not available to correct failures in orphaned plans).

Our plan allows both elective deferrals and after-tax contributions. If an otherwise eligible employee was excluded from participation in the plan, I understand we need to provide a QNEC for the missed deferral opportunity and the missed after-tax contribution amount, plus applicable earnings, and the related missed match, plus applicable earnings. If no one has ever made after-tax contributions under the plan, do we just use the ACP attributable to match for the employee's group?

We had a similar situation. Our attorney said the partial withdrawal option (i.e., a lump sum withdrawal at any time) could only be eliminated prospectively and had to be retained for the transferred accounts; however the installment form of payment could be eliminated per the reg cited above.

Currently our plan has no age/service requirement for deferrals and the non-safe harbor match. The non-safe harbor match is a payroll period match with no other allocation conditions. The owner is trying to save some money and would like to amend the plan now to change the eligibility requirements for participation in the non-safe harbor match plan component and require an employee to be at least age 21 and have a year of service. I understand from the TPA that this would be allowable, just as long as we pass coverage testing and ACP testing. For the ACP component plan, the TPA is saying that we need to include in the testing group anyone who is eligible to defer, which would mean a lot of these employees who don't meet the new eligibility requirements for the match would be counted as receiving 0% match. I was thinking we would be able to exclude the employees who don't meet the new age 21 and year of service requirements. Can someone explain how these tests would work with the dual eligibility requirements? Thanks.

Our plan currently has a safe-harbor enhanced match allocated each pay period with no true up at the end of the year. We now wish to do a true-up at the end of the year. The plan document provider says to amend the plan now to provide for the match allocation to be at year-end, with pre-funding per payroll period, rather than having the plan provide for a per-pay period allocation, with a true-up at the end of the year. Is there a difference between the two approaches? Thanks.

Example 7 above assumes the Outbreak Period ended on June 29, 2020 (wish it were true ....).

In the claims denial letter, reply that the plan is subject to ERISA and ERISA Section 404(a)(1)(D) provides that the plan administrator is required to operate the plan in accordance with its terms.