Is this a reasonable class to put in document as a category exclusion?

[Jakyasar]

Hi

Having a discussion with an agent about a category exclusion. I never use it this way but may need to for an illustration. Concerned about BRF issues.

Please consider the following 3 possible scenarios:

Any eligible employee who is a salesperson and hired on or after 1/1/2015 shall be excluded

or

Any eligible employee who is a salesperson and making $75,000 or more annually shall be excluded

or

Any eligible employee who is a salesperson making $75,000 or more annually and also employed on or after 1/1/2015 shall be excluded

Are any of the above an issue for BRF purposes?

Thank you

[CuseFan]

So first, I would not use "eligible" in any of the above descriptions because you're excluding these employees from being classified as eligible employees.

All are permissible classifications but the second two need some clarification - the $75,000 needs a defined time frame (look-back year?) and further defined - is it $75,000 in compensation, and is it gross, plan, commission income or base pay?

Why are you concerned with BRF? You need to satisfy coverage for whatever plans/portions of plans you want this exclusion, and if you can satisfy coverage for that then BRF won't be a problem.

[Jakyasar]

Hi

Thanks for your response especially on the expansion of compensation definitions.

In my many years, I have never used anything other than job categories (almost never needed to). In few occasions used names but made sure that always passed ratio test.

These new exclusions are new for me. I know not to use age related inclusions/exclusions.

Thank you again.