Good401(k)

Thank you all for the response. Agree with Bri - any additional thoughts on this methodology? Larry?

Client has 26 pay periods per year, resulting in two months (Mar & Aug) having three pay dates. The clients payroll system is unable to process voluntary benefits, including 401(k) deferrals on a 26 pay period basis (not sure why, just what I've been told). As such, although there are 26 pay periods per year, deferrals for the retirement plan are pulled from only 24. This fact has been widely communicated and is standard knowledge to employees. Question: has anyone seen anything in the code that would prohibit this arrangement? I'm slightly concerned for those employees who elect a % deferral, as their total deferrals for the year will be slightly less than the % they've selected due to the two additional pay periods not receiving any deferral withholding. Thanks in advance for the assistance.

Anyone have the specific Code Citation disallowing the rollover of non-governmental 457(b) funds to qualified plans (e.g. 401(k)s, IRAs, 403(b)s, etc).? Much appreciated.

Interesting scenario, appreciate any insight: Facts: 401(a) profit-sharing plan (ER contribution only) has 6/30 fiscal year end. Plan terminated 6/30/2017. Participant balances were rolled or distributed by prior record-keeper by 12/29/2017 March 2018, it was determined that the contribution for plan years ended 6/30/15, 16, 17 may have been understated due to an error in the definition of compensation used. Questions: Generally - how does this get unscrambled? The prior accounts have been closed, the prior plan has been terminated, however, prior participants may be eligible for additional contribution. Does the corrective contribution need to go through old plan record-keeper? Can they participants receive the contribution via check? If check - would this be considered cash distribution Any looming deadlines for the contribution to be made? Any and all thoughts welcomed.

Great, thanks for the input folks. Agree on the trickiness of administering, will be doing a bit of consulting to establish the procedures they'll need to follow to accurately track. Again, many thanks.

Have a 401(m) plan, looking at eligibility requirements. Plan sponsor is composed of approximately 60% full-time hires and 40% .4 FTEs or less (most of this group are .01 or .1 FTEs). Sponsor would like to set eligibility as follows: Age: 21 Minimum Service: "employee regularly works more than 20 hrs per week" Initial eligibility would be determined by employee FTE at hire date (per employment contract). If .5 or higher - eligibility would be met and employee would enter next payroll period. If employment contract is for less than .5, employee would be ineligible unless worked more that 1,000 hrs in plan year. In this case, employee would enter next payroll period following the completion of the year of service (e.g. 1000hrs). Looking into whether the service requirement (and eligibility procedure) would meet 410(a)(1)(A). Relius - the plan document provider - says yes, as the procedure would identify employees meeting the 1,000 hrs requirement and would include them in the plan (and therefore meeting 410(a)(1)(A)). But I'm slightly uneasy as I haven't seen any precedent for this procedure. Welcome any thoughts.

Thanks for the reply. What about the application of the flush paragraph under 403(b)(12)(A)(ii) which states that for purposes of the non-discrimination requirements under 403(b)(12)(A) " "Subject to the conditions applicable under section 410(b)(4), there may be excluded for purposes of this subparagraph employees who are students performing services described in section 3121(b)(10) and employees who normally work less than 20 hours per week."

I have a 403(b) with elective deferrals, discretionary matching and profit-sharing contributions. The plan meets the universal availability requirements while excluding student employees and employees who regularly work less than 20 hrs per week. Question is: are these employees also considered excludable for purposes of applying the coverage and discrimination tests. I haven't found specific guidance in the regulations as it relates to 403(b)s specifically. It would seem intuitively that these employees would also qualify as 'excludable' for coverage and discrimination testing purposes as for matching purposes they would never receive a match as a result of being excluded under UA rules. Welcome any thoughts.