BRF testing for vesting

Sponsor would like to provide accelerated 100% vesting for a group of employees who are terminating in order to work for a new hospital. There are a mix of HCE's and NHCE's. How does the BRF test get performed - I understand that 2 tests are involved - 1. Ratio % test, and 2. Nondiscriminatory classification test. For the Ratio test, what numbers do I look at - for example # NHCE's who are benefitting under the 100% vesting divided by # NHCE's not benefitting who are not already 100% vested, and likewise for the HCE group? The plan has 3 year cliff vesting, so obviously many HCE and NHCE are already vested and staying with the employer.

Thanks!

Do you have a Partial Termination?

We tend to mostly think of that with the 20% rule but the actual rules are broader then that. 

I quote:

Whether or not a partial termination of a qualified plan occurs (and the time of such event) shall be determined by the Commissioner with regard to all the facts and circumstances in a particular case. Such facts and circumstances include: the exclusion, by reason of a plan amendment or severance by the employer, of a group of employees who have previously been covered by the plan; and plan amendments which adversely affect the rights of employees to vest in benefits under the plan.

The 20% rule is just a presumption.  Is this a plan amendment or a severance by the employer which will adversely affect the rights of employees to vest? 

You might want to talk to an ERISA attorney to see and make sure you aren't setting some kind of precedence you don't want to set. 

I know not a direct answer to your question but it really was the first thing that came to my mind when I read the fact pattern. 

There is not a partial termination, just granting 100% vesting to a group of employees.

Thanks!

30Rock: "This is not a partial termination BECAUSE.......". If you would like people to help you with your questions, it is always best to give full answers to issues raised.  For example, is this 10 people out of 1000 employees? Then clearly, no partial term.  The numbers involved would have been helpful in the original question.  People tend to look at a question once and move on; if all the necessary info isn't there, many will just ignore it and never come back to it.  

Everyone should try to give as much useful information as possible in the original posting; you are likely to get the best and quickest answers that way.

Just something we found was the case after years of running the Pension Information Exchange (the original internet Q&A board).

This is not a BRF issue but a 1.401(a)(4)-5 issue. You should find what you need there.

I found it in 1.401(a)(4)-11(c)

Seems like it could have been a BRF issue or a plan amendment issue, but turns out to an "Additional rule." Good thing you kept on looking!