Oldie but goodie - 401(a)(26)

[FAPInJax]

A client has 21 non-excludable employees. Obviously, 40% is 8.4.

Is there any rationale to enable 8 to be used (the regulation does not specify greater than, at least , etc.) when determining how many employees must be covered to pass 401(a)(26).

Personally, I feel most comfortable with 9.

Thanks for any and all responses.

[david rigby]

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=26640

[rcline46]

I concur. Here its the % that counts, and if you don't make it you fail.

[FAPInJax]

Thanks for the response.

Pax - how do you find those cites?? Any hints?? I tried using the search capability in BenefitsLink and did not find that one at all.

[david rigby]

I find the Search feature to be very useful. In this case, I remembered there was a prior discussion thread on rounding, but did not remember whether it was exactly on point. So I used "round" or "rounding" as my search word. Using "401(a)(26)" as a search word may or may not be successful. The key is being creative with the search word, and trying more than one.