Two matches

[MGOAdmin]

Would you be permitted to have two matches where the first match would go to everyone but the second one would only go to employees employed on the last day (meaning the active employees would get both matches).

I am trying to think if there are any discrimination issues.

[BG5150]

Coverage?

[Tom Poje]

since all are eligible for the first match I wouldn't think coverage is an issue.

lets suppose everyone receive 100% up to 4%, and then all those active received an additional 100% up to 4% .I think (in addition to the ACP test) it might be a BRF issue - you would for all practicality, have 2 tiers one group at 100% up to 4% and another ay 200% up to 4%. but then, I am a Grinch, so maybe it is just me....

I'm not sure you could even have such a formula in a prototype

 

[ESOP Guy]

I don't see a coverage test issue either.   Way back when I was taught that as long as a person received any benefit they benefit for coverage.  So you could give $1in match to everyone but the owner who gets $1 for $1 match and pass coverage.  You would fail nondiscrimination but not coverage.   

 

I am trying to think if this has to pass anything besides ACP?  As a general rule ACP is the discrimination test for match.  

[david rigby]

ACP yes.  But this design may cause some strain on the ADP test as well.

[chc93]

1 hour ago, david rigby said:

ACP yes.  But this design may cause some strain on the ADP test as well.

Could you briefly explain how this might affect the ADP test?

[david rigby]

5 hours ago, chc93 said:

Could you briefly explain how this might affect the ADP test?

Encourage more deferrals, especially by the HCEs.  (Of course, this is meant as "relative  to only one match")

[Luke Bailey]

The underpinning in regs for Tom Poje's point is 1.401(m)-1(a)(ii). The second, eoy match is an additional level of match, so the group that gets it would need to be nondiscriminatory under 401(a)(4), so either pass ratio percentage or average benefits. Then ACP would be applied to all of the matching contributions.

[chc93]

17 hours ago, david rigby said:

Encourage more deferrals, especially by the HCEs.  (Of course, this is meant as "relative  to only one match")

David... thank you very much.  I understand... I was wondering if there might be some computational effect on the ADP test.