Message Boards Digest

July 11, 2022

Here are the most recently added topics on the BenefitsLink Message Boards:

Jakyasar created a topic in Defined Benefit Plans, Including Cash Balance

My First Age 72 RMD Calculations -- Two Scenarios

"My first age 72 calculations for 2 different scenarios and want to confirm my understanding:

Scenario 1: Participant turning 72 on 9/1/2022, first RMD is due by 4/1/2023 and based on 1/1/2022 AB (fully vested). If they want to take by 12/31/2022, can they take 1/1/2022 AB*12?

Scenario 2: Participant already receiving RMDs for the past few years. The past # were based on old tables and they do not need to be adjusted, correct? The new AB portion will be calculated based on the new tables, correct?"

2 replies so far   |    Click Here to Add a Reply

J Simmons created a topic in Plan Document Amendments

Looking for a Provider of Plan Documents

"For 30+ years, I drafted plan documents for clients and consulted them when issues arised. Most of my clients (small professional practices) used a local investment adviser/broker to invest plan assets, and a local accounting firm to perform allocation/testing computations and Forms 5500 and SARs.

Some time ago I notified my plan document/consulting clients that I would no longer be a provider of plan documents, though am yet available for design, operations and fix-it consultations. Since July 1, I've been contacted by a few 'procrastinators' looking for a source of just plan documents for Cycle 3 restatements and later updates.

If you so provide documents separate and apart from other services, and would be interested in either referrals from me or providing a document with me involved in the design, please e-mail me at Thank you"

No replies yet   |    Click Here to Add a Reply

Bird created a topic in Retirement Plans in General

Changing Plan Name Associated with EIN

"Old instructions for changing a plan name or address said to send a letter or fax to the office that issued the EIN, and indeed there were several offices for various geographic areas. Nowadays, we get EINs online. There is a single fax number and address (Cincinnati) on the newest instructions if you want to get an EIN that way; not sure if that would work for a change.

Further muddling things is the fact that this particular EIN has likely been de-activated, with no activity since 2017. The address for re-activation is in Ogden UT (different fax from the Cincy address for changes). Any experience with changes and reactivations at the same time? After googling all of this for an hour, I'm inclined to just get a new number."

1 reply so far   |    Click Here to Add a Reply

Bri created a topic in Retirement Plans in General

Defining Statutory Exclusions

"I know the IRS has said you can define your otherwise excludable employees either by direct reference to 410(a)'s statutory dates, OR you can use the plan's entry dates, OR you can ignore entry dates (like one might do under a strict reading of the carve-out rule).

I normally like my exclusions as defined under 410(a). But, I've got a testing situation where a 2021 HCE was hired early January 2020, made his 200K in earnings, became match-eligible as of APRIL 1, 2021 (one YoS, age 21, quarterly entry), and then terminated a few weeks later after becoming eligible for a big hunk of match. So, before his July 5, 2021, latest possible entry date under 410(a). And therefore, I'd normally deem the guy excludable.

This is not for ADP purposes -- his plan is safe harbor. But, it needs to be aggregated for 410(b) purposes with a second plan within the entire controlled group.

The other plan is slightly different because its match eligibility is one YoS, age 18, and monthly entry dates. (And its SH match formula is slightly different, too.)

The hundred dollar question (oh, we'll bill them more than that) is: Should I be defining my excludables based on whichever plan the employer sponsors?

For instance, since my HCE guy is in the quarterly entry plan, he's not excludable because he properly came in on April 1 after his year.

But let's say I have two employees, one each at separate companies in the separate plans. Let's say they both started 5-15-2020 and terminated 6-12-2021. The guy in the quarterly-entry plan would be excludable (terminated before 7-1) and the guy in the monthly-entry plan would not (entered 6-1), presuming I'm using a 'plan's entry date' approach. Does that sound like an appropriate approach, as opposed to using one set of criteria for both groups of employees?

I have to pass the average benefit percentage test for the quarterly-entry plan because its ratio percentage is in the 40s (SH% = 23.75) so I need to be sure who's in the 'main' test out of both groups of employees. And I don't want that lone HCE on his own, as the otherwise excludable test for his plan would also fail 410b and require extra employer contributions for ABPT purposes....maybe a lot."

No replies yet   |    Click Here to Add a Reply

Laura23 created a topic in 401(k) Plans

Calculating Match for Related Employers

"A 401(k) safe harbor retirement plan covers two related companies - Company A and Company B. Employee has ownership in both Company A and Company B.

Employee has wages of $30,000 in Company A and defers the maximum pre-tax deferral to the retirement plan. Company A matches those wages up to 4% for a match of $1,200 ($30,000 x 4%). Employee also has wages of $100,000 in Company B. No employee deferrals here since those were already maxed in Company A.

Do the wages get aggregated because the Companies operate one plan such that the wages in Company B should also be matched? Does Company B owe a match to Employee of $100,000 x 4% = $4,000?

A reference to authoritative literature on this would be helpful. I have searched with different terminology but have not found what I need."

2 replies so far   |    Click Here to Add a Reply

thepensionmaven created a topic in 401(k) Plans

Amend Safe Harbor Non-Elective to ACP with QMAC

"Client sponsors a safe harbor non elective and wants to add voluntary contribution to their accounts but no NHCEs will be making voluntary contribs. Plan will need ADP testing (that's a given). With voluntary contribution made only for HCEs, will need ACP test which obviously will fail without QMAC.

If 3% QMAC for all employees will pass ACP, is a flat % of comp allowed?

Client understands the elective contributions will be subject to ADP testing. Can plan have ADP as well as ACP testing each year?"

No replies yet   |    Click Here to Add a Reply

Dougsbpc created a topic in Cross-Tested Plans

Using ABPT to Pass Coverage

"One of the requirements to be able pass coverage using the Average Benefits Percentage Test is to have a reasonable classification. We have a cross-tested profit sharing plan that does not pass 410(b) 67%. In terms of the allocation, the plan indicates that each participant is in his/her own group.

Does that by itself mean that the plan does not have a reasonable classification and therefore cannot use the average benefits percentage test?"

2 replies so far   |    Click Here to Add a Reply

K-t-F created a topic in Plan Document Amendments

Removing a Trustee As Part of Document Restatement

"I've done this before but it was not during a restatement year. A small plan (husband, wife, 1 employee). Husband and wife are divorcing. Can I simply prepare the Cycle 3 restatement docs and take her off as a trustee? Or does she need to formally acknowledge and agree to no longer be a trustee in amendment form in addition to the restatement?"

4 replies so far   |    Click Here to Add a Reply

waid10 created a topic in 403(b) Plans, Accounts or Annuities

Handling VALIC's Refund of Small Amount of Interest on Loan Escrow Amounts

"Our prior retirement plan provider (VALIC) sent us two small checks (one for $1 and another for $17) stating that they charged the wrong interest rate on escrow amounts held under the contracts which were securing outstanding loan amounts under the plan. Thus, they are refunding for the participants that were affected. Does anyone have guidance on what to do with these checks? There's no indication about who these relate to."

2 replies so far   |    Click Here to Add a Reply

Peter Gulia created a topic in Operating a TPA or Consulting Firm

How Much of Your Work Involves a Formal Appearance Before the IRS?

"I hope BenefitsLink neighbors will help me with an unscientific survey. Any results will be used only for a research project. And I'll use responses only anonymously and in the aggregate.

[1] What percentage of your work time is used in a proceeding that requires you to file a Form 2848 or other notice of an appearance before the IRS? (For example, my estimate for 2006-2021 is about 3/100 of one percent. That is, about 99.97 of my work time did not involve defending an IRS examination or presenting a request for a ruling or determination.)

[2] What is your estimate of the percentage of people who regularly provide advice about retirement plans who have never filed a Form 2848 or other notice of an appearance before the IRS?"

8 replies so far   |    Click Here to Add a Reply

Here are the most recently posted jobs on, a service of BenefitsLink:

View job as Compliance Analyst - Defined Contribution Plans

Compliance Analyst - Defined Contribution Plans  View details

M2B Retirement Consulting LLC
Remote / PA

View job as Relationship Manager

Relationship Manager  View details

Compass Retirement Consulting Group, Inc.
Remote / Stratham NH

View job as Relationship Manager - Retirement Plans

Relationship Manager - Retirement Plans  View details

Sikich LLP
Remote / Maple Grove MN

►View More Jobs

►Post a Job

►Get Instant Job Alerts, Inc.
56 Creeksong Road
Whittier NC 28789
(407) 644-4146

Lois Baker, J.D., President
David Rhett Baker, J.D., Editor and Publisher
Holly Horton, Business Manager

Copyright 2022, Inc. All materials contained in this mailing are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of, Inc., or in the case of third party materials, the owner of those materials. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notices from copies of the content.

Links to web sites other than and are offered as a service to our readers; we were not involved in their production and are not responsible for their content.

Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy