MarZDoates Posted December 2, 2005 Posted December 2, 2005 Plan permits any participant with account balance =>$10,000 to have a segregated, self-directed account. Everyone else stays in a pooled account with Trustee investment direction. Currently 65% of the NHCEs have the ability to self direct. 100% of the HCEs have the ability. Is this discriminatory? Is there a specific percentage of NHCEs that would have to be allowed to self direct that would not be discriminatory? QPA, QKA
imchipbrown Posted December 2, 2005 Posted December 2, 2005 Off point but maybe relevant. Say I'm a NHCE with a separate account, deferring (I assume a 401(k) account) $50/check. If I have a seperate account, do I have any real investment options? Most mutual funds want a $1,000 beginning investment. I'd be better off in a pooled account. Of course, facts and circumstances rule the roost.
JanetM Posted December 2, 2005 Posted December 2, 2005 Last I dealt with this the numbers were the same as 410b and 401a4 coverage. So if you have at least 70% NCHE who have ability to self direct you are okay. If not the plan needs to make some changes. Minimum balance requirements rarely pass the test JanetM CPA, MBA
MWeddell Posted December 2, 2005 Posted December 2, 2005 Two issues here: 1) Is this a benefit right or feature available to only some participants that is subject to 1.401(a)(4)-4 testing? 2) If so, does the test pass? I believe the answers are yes and yes. There probably are previous threads discussing the first issue and I'll admit that it's unclear. On the second issue, through a series of cross-references, the BRF test is the same as the nondiscriminatory classification test. You compute a ratio percentage but the passing threshold isn't 70.00% but a lower figure between 20% and 50%. If all of the controlled group's employees are eligible for the plan, then your ratio percentage of those who have access to self-direction is 65% >= 50%, which passes. Of course, you'd need to test every three years at least.
MarZDoates Posted November 8, 2006 Author Posted November 8, 2006 Going to re-open this can of worms. If you have a requirement that only participants who are fully vested can self direct, wouldn't this have the same effect as placing a minimum balance restriction on the right to self direct investments? QPA, QKA
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now