Belgarath Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 I've seen some discussion of this type of thing in an ADP testing context, but not in the basic 70% testing. I tried a search and didn't find it. 5 HC's who have satisfied age and service, and are participants in the plan. One is the owners wife. The wife for 2009 received zero compensation and had zero hours, but has not "terminated" employment. A strict interpretation of 410(b) would probably lead me to include her, but she clearly isn't "benefitting." Under this thoery, only 80% of HC are benefitting, so only have to cover 56% of the NHC. This seems very wrong to me, and allows for some rather gross manipulation in family situations. I think a much more reasonable result is to exclude her from the testing altogether, have 100% coverage for HC, and therefore require 70% of the NHC. Last I knew, there was no official guidance on this. Has that changed? Opinions? Thanks!
Blinky the 3-eyed Fish Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 I agree to exclude her. It's impossible IMO to include her in nondiscrimination testing, so the same treatment should be shown for coverage testing. Nothing official though as far as I know. "What's in the big salad?" "Big lettuce, big carrots, tomatoes like volleyballs."
Belgarath Posted January 29, 2010 Author Posted January 29, 2010 Thanks Blinky. Although I didn't mention it in the OP, I'm presuming the same treatment would apply to NHC. And as I think about it, the "hours" really is a red herring. They could have hours but no compensation, and it's the zero compensation that really drives this.
BG5150 Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 Can't you exclude people who work less than 500 hours from your test? QKA, QPA, CPC, ERPATwo wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left.
John Feldt ERPA CPC QPA Posted January 29, 2010 Posted January 29, 2010 Can't you exclude people who work less than 500 hours from your test? Only if they terminated employment.
Belgarath Posted February 10, 2010 Author Posted February 10, 2010 All right - one additional question. Would it make any difference if it is an unincorporated owner? The plan uses "earned income" which is net earnings from self-employment. If line 31 on the Schedule C (and whatever corresponding line is used on the K-1 - I don't recall off the top of my head) is zero (or less, if a loss) then it seems like the treatment should be no different. Any other thoughts on this?
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