Purplemandinga

That is interesting, I was thinking BRF would suffice as well but I was tripped up by the 410(a) reg posted above. I never considered it being a "plan as a whole".

Hmm, that makes sense ETA. Good to know!

So there is an example in the book for the CPC exam where it discusses the current availability requirement of the benefits rights and features tests. If you have a copy of the 5th edition of the CPC exam page 81 discusses an example of this very situation. Less than 1 year of service receives a 25% match, greater than 1 but less than 5 is a 50% match and 5 or more is 100% match. It says the formula is allowed based on the demographics given with no mention of the above reg. I would assume ASPPA wouldn't allow such an egregious example to be placed among the study materials for the CPC exam if this wasn't allowed. I'm very curious, the regulation is quite clear but why would it appear in the CPC manual? Weird.

I think you could almost make this work. You could do this formula if you structured it right and assuming the demographics of your employee base allow you to pass. You would however have to tweak it a little, and setting up the vesting provisions may not be what was desired. What I would do is set eligibility for match to one year - 1000 hours but set the allocation for less than two years of participation or employment at 0% of deferrals, 2-5 years at 50% of deferrals and greater than 5 would be 100% of deferrals. The big caveat here would be you would have to test each allocation rate for benefits rights and features, in addition and on top of passing ACP testing. I would use 3 year cliff vesting instead of 2.

I'm sure this has been beaten to death here. But say a plan transfers from service provider A to service provider B. What is best practice for the effective date of restatement to new document on the transfer to Provider B? Is it the day blackout lifts? Is it the day cash transfers from service provider A to service provider B?

I'd think you could swing a 401(a) profit sharing only plan though.

I assumed that requiring the benefit to be at contract value would be "conditioned, limited or restricted" if the value of the asset dispersed from investment was different (less than) than the value of the investment while it was still held for investment. For example a term such as you must hold onto this investment for 24 months otherwise you get paid out 99.5% of the contract value. So I would think the 20% annual transfer of accumulation value in this case would not be a condition, limit or a restriction because the assets held for investment will always equal the amounts disbursed upon the election of the participants. I could be wrong. CPE for retirement related topics always pop up in the spring. I would check the AICPA or your state's CPA society to see if they offer anything along these lines.

This is probably a dumb question. But how do In-Kind distributions work if the plan is invested in a group annuity? I'm assuming the In-Kind distribution rules do not apply to insurance products but I don't know where I can research this.

So in this case the plan document specifically mentions the "Plan Administrator" as the decision maker for these choices. Being so, the choice to select the testing option is necessarily a fiduciary one, and the choice to test would be the choice that grants the greatest benefits to participants. It would appear that there isn't much of a "choice" here then. Thanks for the clarity Luke.

That makes sense. That's the opinion I was hoping for. Thanks ETA!

Quick question. Is the choice to disaggregate otherwise excludable employees or to test nondiscrimination using full year compensation vs compensation earned upon entering the plan a settler function? Since these choices are not choices to select in the adoption agreement but rather granted for use in the basic plan document.

But would Company A being entirely inside of a ESOP prevent a controlled group from forming with a company that it owns 100% of? I want to think this is still a Parent Subsidiary controlled group of A & B.

Company A is a corporation and owns 100% of another corporation Company B. 100% of Company A's stock is held by an ESOP, no employee has a more than 5% ownership interest in the ESOP shares. Does a controlled group exist?

Thanks Jpod, I was afraid of that being the case.

I know this has been discussed on the boards before, but I'm not finding any definitive answer about how to determine if a 403(b) plan is subject to the QJSA rules. Lets say I have an ERISA 403(b)(1) with an annual discretionary matching formula. The plan has never had a transfer in of moneys that are specifically required to offer annuities as a normal form, the plan pays a deceased participant's entire vested benefit to the surviving spouse and choosing an annuity is not a distribution option for participants to choose from. Could my plan still be subject to the QJSA rules? Why?

Thank you!

Is there a list or can someone point me in the direction of a resource that would detail the required notices for a One-Participant Retirement plan? Thanks