Plan acquired entities with 400 new participants during the course of 2018 -- all hired 2/1/18. Plan is recognizing service from date of hire for the 400 new participants. In 401k testing, I am excluding all those who do not meet statutory eligibility. Do I count the participants I'm recognizing past service for in the non-excludable test? It seems like I would not, because their hire dates with the employer don't meet statutory eligibility regardless of the past service that is being recognized.

[Advert.]

CertiDeath™ eliminates the work, complexity, and uncertainty now associated with identifying deaths, saving companies loads of time spent reviewing obituaries and money lost due to missed or misclassified deaths.

Is anybody aware of a publication that has a good discussion of the difference in taxation between annuities in general and the simplified method of taxing annuity payments from a qualified plan under IRC Section 72(d)?

A plan provides for a discretionary match which the plan sponsor may make after the plan year has ended (1,000 hours and last day required). The plan sponsor wants to wait until later in the year to decide whether or not to make the match, let's say after March 15. The plan fails the ADP test, and if match is allocated pro-rata over deferrals, it will most likely fail the ACP test as well. If the match is discretionary, is it possible to allocate the match by reducing the match to the HCEs sufficient to avoid an ACP failure and possible excise tax? I'm not finding anything in the document that indicates one way or the other.

Plan document calls for safe harbor matching contribution to be determined on a payroll-by-payroll basis (with no true-up). A true-up was calculated for 2016 and 2017 and deposited by the Plan Sponsor. How do we correct? We are thinking of forfeiting the excess amount due to true-up with earnings and file under EPCRS. Any way to avoid that?

Company A acquired Company B in an asset sale in late 2018. Company B maintained a 401(k) plan that was not assumed by Company A as part of the sale. Nonetheless, following the closing date, Company A has continued to make contributions (both employer contributions and elective deferrals) to Company B's plan, which were accepted by the TPA. It seems to me that this scenario results in countless technical violations, but little (if any) harm to participants, and that the least problematic solution would be for Company A to assume sponsorship of the plan, retroactive to the date of closing. I'm aware that such an approach should involve a VCP application but I doubt the parties will be interested in the time and expense that would be involved. Any problems with that proposed solution (aside from the risk associated with not going through VCP) that I'm missing? Alternatively, are there cleaner solutions?

Participant enrolled and deferrals withheld and timely deposited. In September the employee reached $18,500. Payroll stopped his deferral. The participant was over 50. Due to a payroll glitch, the catch up contributions were not withheld. In January the employer realized the error. They have corrected the payroll issue. Any action required by the employer for these "missed" deferrals? The employer does not make a match contribution.

I work for a large employer with a DB plan that bases benefits on up to 45 years of service. Our participants seem to love their jobs too much to retire, so we have several active participants (who are NOT highly-paid) who are over 70-1/2, continuing to work full-time, and whose accrued benefits have exceeded section 415 limits. We've been advised by our attorneys that the appropriate way to handle this is to begin periodic payments, even though the participants continue to work. This is a new concept for me. I think I missed a regulation change somewhere. With previous employers our practice was to stop accruals as necessary and make distributions from a non-qualified plan in order to make the participants whole. Could someone provide a little history on this and direct me to the appropriate regs?