Search the Community

Hello. We are TPA for a plan that utilizes an auto-enrollment feature in the plan. Client realized that he missed enrolling a handful of employees in 2017. The client did not contact us to determine the best way to handle this situation. They enrolled each employee approximately 3 months late. Client did not know that by not providing a notice to the participants within 45 days of starting the deferrals, that client is now subject to QNECs for these participants. 1. Have we interpreted the ruling correctly that the client is now subject to making required QNECs for the affected participants? 2. How are the participants reported on the ADP Test? Do we include the QNEC contribution in the testing? Please advise. Thanks.

DB/DC combination. Eligible Employee (HCE, but not key) enters both plans 1-1-2016. They accrue benefits for 2016. Now, both plans are amended to exclude this HCE (but not key) by classification effective 1-1-2017. Not eligible for deferrals, match, PS or anything, and not eligible for DB. The plans are not frozen. Owners and NHCEs and other HCEs are still eligible and accruing in both plans. A colleague is arguing that continuing additional top-heavy minimums must be accrued even after 2016 by this HCE even though they are fully excluded, assuming they meet the top heavy accrual requirement (1000 hours for DB or last day for DC). Based on grey book 2001-35. The written plan language appears to require the participant be an eligible employee to earn a TH minimum accrual. Essentially meaning they must earn a top-heavy year of participation to accrue additional top heavy minimum accruals. If they are now excluded by class, they can't earn any more years of top-heavy participation. My colleague states that this HCE became a "participant" on 1-1-2016 and that fact requires the plan to provide top-heavy minimums to comply with the law/guidance, since they are still a "participant" with accounts and/or benefit accruals from the 2016 plan year. The document might not have a formula for them for any more normal accruals, but the plan would not meet the law’s requirements if the top-heavy minimum was not provided, causing a qualification issue. Your thoughts on this?

A small 401(k) plan is written to provide a safe harbor match. If the employer provides no profit sharing and no forfeitures are allocated (or they are allocated as ACP-free match), the plan is top-heavy exempt. Suppose the plan is also written to partially exclude one sales person who is a Non-Highly Compensated Employee (not an owner and makes under $115,000). They are only excluded from the deferral and match portion of the plan. The plan easily passes coverage by covering the other 8 NHCEs. The employer wants the sales person to still get profit sharing in the years that they actually make a profit sharing contribution. However, in the years where no profit sharing is contributed, is the plan still top-heavy exempt (assume no forfeitures)?