Guest elang Posted May 25, 2010 Posted May 25, 2010 If I have 33 Eligible Employees and the Plan has a Top Paid Group Election; 20% = 6.6. Do I round up or down or do I have discretion? Thanks in advance
Below Ground Posted May 25, 2010 Posted May 25, 2010 I would round up. Having braved the blizzard, I take a moment to contemplate the meaning of life. Should I really be riding in such cold? Why are my goggles covered with a thin layer of ice? Will this effect coverage testing? QPA, QKA
PensionPro Posted May 25, 2010 Posted May 25, 2010 Rounding and tie-breaking rules. In making the look-back year and determination year calculations for a determination year, it may be necessary for an employer to adopt a rule for rounding calculations (e.g., in determining the number of employees in the top-paid group). In addition, it may be necessary to adopt a rule breaking ties among two or more employees (e.g., in identifying those particular employees who are in the top-paid group or who are among the 100 most highly compensated employees). In such cases, the employer may adopt any rounding or tie-breaking rules it desires, so long as such rules are reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and uniformly and consistently applied. 1.414(q)-1T, A-3(b) PensionPro, CPC, TGPC
BG5150 Posted May 26, 2010 Posted May 26, 2010 ...so long as such rules are reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and uniformly and consistently applied. 1.414(q)-1T, A-3(b) I'm guessing that "we ALWAYS use the method that benefits the testing" isn't considered ok even though it reasonable (it's an easy distinction), nondiscriminatory (it doesn't discriminate against HCE's) and consistent (it's always done). QKA, QPA, CPC, ERPATwo wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left.
david rigby Posted May 26, 2010 Posted May 26, 2010 416 regs (adopted 12/31/84). Is Q&A T14 relevant to your question? I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice.
Mike Preston Posted May 26, 2010 Posted May 26, 2010 416 regs (adopted 12/31/84). Is Q&A T14 relevant to your question? OK, I'll bite. I don't see how.
david rigby Posted May 26, 2010 Posted May 26, 2010 OK, I'll bite. I don't see how. From the midde of A14 is this, "If 10% of the number of employees is not an integer, the maximum number of individuals to be treated as key employees by reason of being officers shall be increased to the next integer." Is it reasonable to interpret this as the IRS's opinion that you should round up? I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice.
Mike Preston Posted May 26, 2010 Posted May 26, 2010 Not in my opinion. It is reasonable to assume that since they previously published that language in 416, they knew of its existence. Therefore, the fact that it wasn't included in 414(q) means specifically that the rationale in 416 doesn't apply. IMNSHO.
Guest Sieve Posted May 26, 2010 Posted May 26, 2010 I agree with Mike, but for different reasons. The HCE rounding rules (including for top paid group) are in the HCE regs specifically (as quoted by PensionPro), and therefore are the only rules pertinent for HCE issues. Good try, BG. High marks for creativity.
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