Interpretation LTPT

[thepensionmaven]

Regarding the three (or two) years period, does this mean any employee that worked PT, aggregate for 2021,2022 and 2023, (now 2022 and 2023) OR anyone hired in either 2021, 2022 or 2023) and worked PT in any of these years,  must be given the opportunity to defer?

Semantics or stupidity on my part?

How can an employee be considered LT with only 2-3 years of service?

[Belgarath]

It is 3 consecutive years, (technically 3 consecutive eligibility computation periods - watch this if you switch to plan year). Two, starting in 2025.

[thepensionmaven]

I have seen two different corporate resolutions, each from different document providers - one says "participants eligible for employer safe harbor, match, profit sharing, etc. unless the Sponsor chooses not to provide"; the other document states the exact opposite- "participants are not eligible, the Sponsor must elect to make them eligible."

Which is the correct interpretation?  I'd hate to switch vendors at this point!

[Peter Gulia]

Might the two statements you describe both be good enough?

Each seems to involve a choice. The statements differ in which choice results if the user omits to specify its choice.

[thepensionmaven]

The only problem is that these are corporate resolutions and each is sponsored by another document vendor.

So, you can't pick and choose which one you want to use, as each vendor only uses their particular resolution.

[Paul I]

Is the purpose of these resolutions solely to document a plan sponsor's choices for LTPT employees receiving other contribution types in addition to 401(k) deferrals?  Or, is the purpose to have a resolution adopting an interim plan amendment?

Either way, I think it is a bad idea for a plan to say LTPTs get the other contribution types by default unless the sponsor elects otherwise.  If the plan sponsor felt before SECURE some part-time employess should get the other contributions, why did they exclude them before there were LTPT rules?

 

[Peter Gulia]

Maybe it’s easier to ignore whichever document anyone suggests.

If the plan’s provisions need not be written in the thing tax law calls “the” plan document until the end of a remedial-amendment period, why not wait?

If a service provider requires an instruction on what to assume in performing its services, the plan’s administrator might deliver a service instruction (but the plan sponsor can avoid an unnecessary formality, and might avoid several premature obligations).