kshawbenefits

That's what I thought. I think the answer to my question is in -3(c)(6). The client wants to exclude the division entirely while retaining SH status for the parent company plan. My conclusion is that it's a no go for retaining SH status; have to determine if they can pass testing while excluding the division. Thank you for your help!

Now I am sort of answering my own question, but after looking at the regs cited above, wouldn't I actually be looking to Reg. §1.401(k)-3(c)(6)(i) to answer the question of whether the employees of a specific division can be excluded from a safe harbor plan?

I am assuming that you mean the SH 3% contribution, not the match.

The group that would be excluded would be excluded for all purposes including deferrals.

Can a safe harbor plan exclude the employees of one member of a controlled group? Can the plan be separated into SH and non-SH?

Thanks everyone for your thoughts!

Should an investment committee have a special process for adding a target-date fund to a 401k lineup, and possibly using it as the QDIA? A client is being told that it should take the extra step of having its investment committee interview the managers of the target-date funds under consideration. I haven't heard this before. Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks.

Does anyone have any updates on this topic? Have the FSA limits been announced officially?

I am assuming that when you say "elect" you mean that the plan documents include statements that they will comply/be subject to 401(a)(13), 411 and 414(p)? Is there some other formal election? I am not aware of any.

Client is a religious organization with both 401(a) and 403(b) plans. Participant terminated employment and requested distribution- the distribution was delayed because of an incorrect address. During the delay period (i.e. after the distribution would have otherwise been made but before it actually was), the plan administrator received a consent order for a pending divorce. Neither the sponsor nor the administrator (which is a MAJOR provider) seems to have any written QDRO procedures for the plans. Just a practice where the administrator generally receives a DRO and the plan administrator approves it. Any thoughts on whether the plans are satisfying 414(p)(6)(B)? Or whether the distribution should still be made? Given the financial situation laid out in the consent order, there is a chance that the spouse would get the full benefit available under one or both of the plans.

I have a similar situation to these facts- prototype plan; mistake made in PPA restatement; the system-generated participant communications (including safe harbor notices since 2016) picked up the error. For those who have successfully argued in VCP that a retroactive amendment is appropriate, what types of information have you included to show the plan sponsor's intent? Prior plan provisions? I am struggling with how to prove the negative (i.e., that the plan sponsor did NOT intend to revise the plan). Thanks!

The error was in both the Plan document AND the SPD, so I don't think we have good facts, but the client wants to try. I am reading Section 10.08(c) of the EPCRS procedures in Rev Proc 2016-51 to mean that we could revise the filing if the IRS rejects our original correction proposal, but any thoughts would be appreciated.

An error was made in a plan document, which resulted in the omission of a year of service requirement for matching contributions. Client is asking to submit VCP filing asking IRS to approve a retroactive amendment, or to approve the calculations for making up the missed contributions. Can you submit alternative correction methods in one VCP filing for the same error? Essentially, "if not this, then that"? Thanks.

401_noob, I am not sure that I would interpret the guidance in 2016-16 the way that it is described in the technical update. I think it is an aggressive interpretation. Thoughts?

The more I look at the issue the more that I think that it is referring to crediting and not eligibility.