Search the Community

We work with a 401k plan with two owner/employees who hit the 402g limit and with profit sharing, hit the 415 limit. They've adding 9 staff members in 2014 with a payroll of $1.1 mil exclusive of the owner’s compensation. Of the 9 staffers, two will make in excess of the compensation limit and the other 7 will hover around or above $100k. None of the 9 will be owners or officers and there are no family member-employees. We're expecting 100% participation from the staffers. In considering plan design, we initially considered incorporating the staffers and adding safe harbor since as near as I can tell the plan instantly will be top heavy. However, the owners are balking at the cost of either the basic match or the non-elective given the size of their payroll. Similarly, we considered new comparability design but anticipate that will be cost-prohibitive as well. We're considering starting a separate plan for the staffers, which would exclude the owners and vice versa. From what I've read, as long as no key employees participate in the staffers' plan, they do not need to be aggregated for top heavy testing. We're aware, however, that if any of the circumstances change and a staffer becomes a key employee, they must be tested together for top heavy. What I don't understand and cannot seem to find is what other impacts (other than administrative burden/expense) to nondiscrimination testing sponsoring two plans will have. Would the plans have to be aggregated for benefits, rights, and features if they use two different profit sharing formulas? Since neither plan will exclude employees or have allocation conditions on employer contributions, we don't anticipate coverage to be an issue if they have to aggregate the plans. Likewise, with ADP/ACP. There has to be something I'm missing. Thoughts? Will setting up a separate staffers' plan work?