401(k) safe harbor plan language

[jkharvey]

I am trying to find out how people are handling plan language for a new 401(k) safe harbor plan. We use Corbel's document (individually designed documents) and the language provides that the employer will make an election to contribute either a matching, enhanced matching or nonelective contribution intended to satisfy the safe harbor requirements of 401(k) and 401(m). Notice 2000-3 seems to indicate, however, that the plan must be amended to state that it intends to satisfy the safe harbor requirements and the plan must specify the 401(k) safe harbor method being used. I am a bit concerned that our language is not sufficient. Any thoughts on this matter would be appreciated.

[Ervin Barham]

Have you contacted Corbel? Of course, 2000-3 is still new (and departs from prior guidance), so I imagine people are still trying to figure out how all of this applies.

[M R Bernardin]

Until the end of the RAP, you don't have to have any safe harbor language in your plan document at all. If you provided timely notice to employees about which safe harbor formula you were going to use, you should be okay. By the end of the RAP, you should have more definite plan language than it sounds like you currently have.