Blaze SSi- RTS system- ee field 61 and subgroups

[Guest Denismh]

Hello Cathy,

Blaze SSI--- RTS System

When we have a test that is separated into subgroups due to excludable testing (Less then a year of service or age 21, or whatever the circumstance may be) Some of the employees are also coded with a 3 in field 61(because of different eligibility requirements). When we encounter this situation the tests includes the individual with the code on the ADP test despite the subgroup they may be in.

For example if Bob should be in subgroup 01 only, And is not eligible to receive a matching contribution but is eligible for an elective contribution a code 3 will be placed in field 61. We run a test based on subgroup 01 and he appears, as he should.

Now when running a test on subgroup 02. He also is listed on this test which he is not a member.

Is there a solution to this problem that we may be overlooking?

When excludable testing is performed is there an easier way that you know of to separate the data into two different test? (Over 21 and greater than a year of service) and (less than 21 or less then a year of service.)

Blaze confirmed that the field #61 is used regardless of sub-group. They say the only solution to this problem is for them to add an additional field doing the same as #61 but would not take precedent over any subgroup. There would be a charge if this were done. I would think this would be a common problem amongst users. The said they can not adjust the field 61 because some users may want it that way. Is there any circumstance that you may know of that you would run a test on a subgroup and want these coded employees to be added on?

Have you encountered this problem before?

Do you have any suggestions that may help?

I'm looking forward in hearing back. I'll keep you busy on this board. I'm surprised you don't receive many questions. Blaze is not the easiest program to use and there is so much that can be done that not many people know about.

Thank you for all your help,

Denis

Denis

[Earl]

to do the otherwise excludable testing I usually code EBP as 21 & 12 (instead of the 21 & 3 months or whatever). Any ideas on that procedure?

Took a long time to reply...I used to check here often but gave up...

Hope to hear back.

earl

[Cathy from Chicago]

We use the same method Earl referred to in his post - simply change the participation requirements in EBPII, run it, open up RTS, bringing over new plan and employee data and running RTS. Works for us and seems pretty simple. If the testing passes due to the EBPII change, we save that test result and use it for the valuation package.

I apologize for the delay in answering - I used to automatically get notified when posts were made so as to hop right on them, but for some reason I wasn't notified. Like you Earl, I rarely check the BlazeSSI area as no one ever seems to post.

[Earl]

Here is another slant on the test.

I have never heard definatively what the otherwise excludible employee definition is. Obvoiusly you can change to 21 and 12 mos. no problem. However, if you have 4 entry dates, can you change to 2?

Well.... If you have 4 entry dates, change to 21 & 12 and see if you pass. If you do, no problem. If you don't, change to 21 & 12 with 1/1 and 7/1 only (excluding those nasty October entrants). See if you pass. If you do, assess the differential.

I am not confident that you can change the entry dates and that is not a Blaze discussion, however that is what I do. I change if necessary and it results in passage. If I still fail, I calculate refunds using the 4 entry dates results.

Also, the variable in RTS that allows for otherwise excludible does not use the same logic as just changing the min service period. It has been a while since i looked at it, but as i recall it was different than any interpretation I had heard.

[Cathy from Chicago]

I don't think the logic if there are four entry dates you can change the eligibility to 2 years, since 1 year is the most you can delay someone entering unless 100% vested within 2 yrs...yes, I know..you'll say, but hey there's only deferrals and they're 100% veseted immediately...well, I know, but the old phrase 'if it doesn't smell right, it isn't' comes into play in my mind....changing to 2 years just seems to easy to resolve the failure problem. that's my take on the situation!

[Earl]

sorry if i was unclear....

Not change to 2 years for eligibility....yikes!

change to 2 entry dates (1/1 & 7/1) following 12 months of service.

The idea is that you can legally set up the plan with that as the most stringent requirements. If you use 21 & 6 months with quarterly entry it is clear that for testing you can "pretend" you are using 12 mos. It is not clear (to me anyway) that you can "pretend" you have semi-annual as opposed to quarterly entry.

But sometimes i say it is worth the risk.

is that more clear?

[Cathy from Chicago]

Yes, it's now totally clear! Whew! I think it'd be ok to take the risk on the quarterly entry date change to 12 months!