Search the Community

FACTS: ABC is an S-Corp owned 100% by Mr. A ABC sponsors a Safe Harbor 401k (Cross Tested) Profit Sharing Plan: 2 HCEs are elig 10 NHCEs are elig ABC 401kPSP excludes employees of Affiliated Employers who have not adopted the Plan; Eligibility is 1 Year of Service with 1000 hours (no min age); Years of Service with Affiliated Employers are counted for plan purposes Maryland LLC is a multimember LLC taxed as a partnership 5% membership interest: Mr A 95% membership interest: Partnership Z (2 partners, both of whom are unrelated to Mr. A) At 1/1/2016 the membership interest changed when Partnership Z wanted to close down. In response to this, Mr A acquired 90% of the partnership's interest via an assignment of interest Mrs A (Mr A's wife) acquired 5% of the partnership's interest via an assignment of interest As a result of this change in LLC membership , Maryland LLC and ABC Corp are now under common control as of 1/1/2016 Mr. A hired an outside person (unrelated) to manage the day to day LLC operations as he simply does not have the time to do it. There are 5 LLC employees (all NHCEs), 3 of whom are very very part time (never 1000 hours), the other 2, John and Jane, may or may not work 1000 hours in a year for LLC however they are also employed by ABC Corp and have had at least 1000 hours credited per year with ABC Corp. These 2 employees are 2 of the 10 NHCE Participants in the ABC Plan. They both receive 2 separate W2s -- 1 for ABC Corp, 1 for LLC QUESTIONS: How do the 2 "shared" employees, John and Jane, count in the 410b test? Assuming the 3 very part time employees of LLC never have 1000 hours, they will never meet eligibility for 410b testing, BUT, the 2 shared employees, John and Jane, have >12mos, 1000 hours and are eligible for the ABC Corp plan (i.e. they are active participants), yet excluded as far as their LLC employment is concerned. So would the NHC coverage be 10/12 essentially counting them as 1 person each in the numerator but counting them as 2 people each in the denominator (1 as ABC ee, 1 as LLC ee)?? I realize it will pass either way, but next year the LLC #s may increase. Mr. A and his wife are eligible for the ABC Plan, yet assuming they have compensation from the LLC, that portion of their work/compensation is excluded from the plan. How does question #1 apply to them? Does the LLC compensation that is excluded for allocation purposes have to be tested for reasonableness, to prove the exclusion is not discriminatory? or does the LLC compensation have to be included for allocation purposes, i.e. added to their ABC Corp compensation for allocation purposes (SH, TH Min, PS)? Presuming the LLC Compensation is excludable, is 401(a)(4) testing done only with respect to ABC Corp compensation? or is the LLC compensation added in for Avg Ben, Rate Group testing purposes? Thank you!

I am designing a new 401(k) profit sharing plan. I have a terminated participant who is young and has low compensation. They enter the plan and then terminate in the middle of the year. I want to use this participant to pass 401(a)(4) as it would be the cheapest option. I end up having to give him about 90% of his compensation. If i design the plan so that there is no hour requirement or last day requirement for discretionary profit sharing, I believe I can give him this large amount. But how should I handle vesting? Does he need to be 100% vested as I am using him so heavily to pass testing? Could he be only 20% vested? Or could I even leave him at 0% vested? How would you handle the vesting if he needed to be 100% vested, but you didnt want any other employees to be automatically 100% vested?

Hi - I am wondering whether the employees of entities owned by a fund; e.g., a Mutual Fund, must be aggregated with employees of the Fund's management company. It seems there should be an exemption but I am not aware of any. Facts: An investment fund (the "Fund") obtains its employees from a Management Firm. Ownership of the Fund and Management companies is not sufficient to make them a controlled group; however, they are likely an Affiliated Service Group. The management firm sponsors a qualified plan covering its own employees. The Fund owns 100% of several companies that offer retirement benefits with much lower contributions/benefits than those of the management org’s plan. Some of the companies owned by the Fund are held as passive investments only ("Passive" entities). Other companies are actively managed by a small group of employees of the management company ("Managed Entities"). Issues: 1. Must employees of the Passive entities be included in coverage/discrimination testing of the Management Org’s plan? 2. Same question as above with respect to employees of the Managed Entities. Proposed Answers: 1. The passive entities need not be counted in discrimination testing because: a. They are not part of a controlled group with the Management Company b. They do not render or receive services to/from the Management Company. 2. The managed entities need not be counted in discrimination test because: a. They are not part of a controlled group with the Management Company; and b. Whatever compensation they pay for service from employees of the Management Company will represent an insubstantial portion of gross revenues of the Management Company Additional Thoughts: I believe there are clear rulings in the area of Prohibited Transactions providing that passive investments are not treated as prohibited parties. I would think a similar exemption should apply to entities that are primarily owned as investments, even if they get some services from employees of the investment fund. Thanks very much for your feedback.

If a company adopts a 401(k) plan midyear retroactively to the beginning of the year and an employee met the eligibility requirements at the beginning of the year, but terminates employment prior to the adoption date, must he be included in the 401(a)(4) testing? Must he receive the 3% non-elective safe harbor contribution?

This is a takeover New-Comp Plan. We looked back at the 2012 and 2013 years and while the client made a gateway contribution, in each year, the rate-group test prepared by Relius showed a required contribution of around 9% of nHCE pay in each year. The CPA says that is OK because the pass the 410(b) Ratio Percentage test.My response was that the Plan is cross tested,hence it must pass BOTH the rate group tests and the average benefits test...he adamantly states "No way". I'd like a second opinion. Here's some background and a few questions. The Plan defines 2 Classifications [Rate groups] –Principals and all others. The Plan Document states the allocation method for non-elective contributions uses the “Participant Group Allocation Method”. There are 2 principals and 6 nHCEs, one of whom was hired 5/1/2013. The Plan permits deferrals for employees with 6 months of service[entry date is monthly]. A Safe Harbor NE contribution is required for all employees meeting that same requirement. Class based Non elective contributions are also allocated to the same employees. Each year the maximum 415 contribution is calculated for the Principal with the lowest compensation. That percentage is then applied to both Principals’ compensation. If a Principal with higher compensation receives a prospective allocation greater than the 415 limit, such Principal’s allocated contribution is capped at the 415 limit. A gateway contribution is then calculated for the nHCEs equal to the lesser of 5% of compensation or 1/3 the highest Principal’s allocation percentage. The Plan is a Non-elective Safe Harbor Plan so the 5% gateway is satisfied through the combination of 3% Safe Harbor + a 2% Non-elective contribution. The Plan is then subjected to Rate-group testing under 401(a)(4). Question 1 Must this Plan be tested under IRC 401(a)(4), The General Nondiscrimination Test? If so, must the General Nondiscrimination Test include “Rate Group testing”? Question 2 Are there any options available to pass general non-discrimination not using rate group testing? Question 3 What does it mean for an otherwise excludable employee to be “separately tested”? If the Plan required only 6 months of svc for a Safe Harbor Non-elective, would that same Otherwise Excludable Employee be entitled to a gateway contribution? Question 4 Is a Gateway contribution required for employees that have been employed less than one year/age 21 when the Plan requires a Safe Harbor Contribution for such employee? May those less than one year/age 21 employees be excluded from the 401(a)(4) General Test? Question 5 The General test shows that approximately 9% of payroll must be contributed for nHCEs in order to pass the rate group test. The employer , in 2013 and 2012 contributed less than the required 9%. The 2013 tax return has been filed. Can one make self corrective contributions for employees in 2014 to correct that error or must some other correction procedure be used.