Guest coryjat Posted February 4, 2007 Posted February 4, 2007 I am looking for someone to confirm that with the new vesting schedule maximums (3 year cliff & 2-6 graded) for all contribution types (elective and non-elective) that this effectively voided the accelerated vesting schedule for those qualified plans that are Top Heavy. I have searched the internet and been unable to find anything speaking to this issue and as stated above, I am looking for someone to confirm that I am either understanding the PPA correctly or am I missing some piece of PPA that also spoke to a new accelerated vesting schedule for top heavy plans. Thank you
J Simmons Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 PPA '06 requires all plans have vesting schedules as fast as what had previously been required of just top-heavy plans. Top heavy or not, a plan cannot now have cliff vesting that requires more than three vesting years, not 20% graded vesting slower than over two-six vesting years. This is required of benefits that accrue for plan years that begin after 2006. So if a plan wants, it can retain its slower vesting for benefits that accrued in earlier years, but then that would require separate accounting. I hope this helps. John Simmons johnsimmonslaw@gmail.com Note to Readers: For you, I'm a stranger posting on a bulletin board. Posts here should not be given the same weight as personalized advice from a professional who knows or can learn all the facts of your situation.
Guest coryjat Posted February 9, 2007 Posted February 9, 2007 PPA '06 requires all plans have vesting schedules as fast as what had previously been required of just top-heavy plans. Top heavy or not, a plan cannot now have cliff vesting that requires more than three vesting years, not 20% graded vesting slower than over two-six vesting years.This is required of benefits that accrue for plan years that begin after 2006. So if a plan wants, it can retain its slower vesting for benefits that accrued in earlier years, but then that would require separate accounting. I hope this helps. So let me confirm that you would also agree that pursuant to the statement you made (which I agree with) then the only "real consequenes" of a plan going Top Heavy, for plan years after 2006, is the mandatory contribution minimums (DB:2% and DC:3%)? Thank you
J Simmons Posted February 10, 2007 Posted February 10, 2007 Correct John Simmons johnsimmonslaw@gmail.com Note to Readers: For you, I'm a stranger posting on a bulletin board. Posts here should not be given the same weight as personalized advice from a professional who knows or can learn all the facts of your situation.
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