"Medical practice with SH 401(k) lists two groups of HCEs - one for the doctor and another for non-physician HCEs (doctor's wife). A third group is for all other continuing employees and a fourth group for terminated employees. Doctor's adult daughter now working for the practice and became eligible for the plan in 2022. Is it possible amend the plan retroactively to put the daughter in a separate group from the doctor's wife? Giving the daughter the same percentage allocation as the wife is killing my non-discrim test."

[Sponsored]

All of our Technical Research eSources are fully updated for SECURE 2.0. Do you have a ReSource with the latest information? Contact us at: sales@erisapedia.com or 612-605-2266

"I am trying to establish the framework to analyze the coordination of multiple employers, so the high level summary and IRC sites/links will be appreciated as well as reference to educational materials not in violation of proprietary information policies. Let's assume we have one person who works for an organization sponsoring 403(b) plan making in excess of $330,000 (just to avoid the math) as a W-2 employee. The person is under of 50. The same person also owns a single member LLC taxed as a sole-proprietorship that sponsors a 'solo 401(k)' plan. Let's assume there is no CB/DB plan in a picture for time being.

• Scenario 1 -- The organization is a non-profit hospital. Then the 403(b) plan is deemed to be controlled by that individual. The individual also has his own medical practice (no common law employees). Therefore, the maximum benefit will be $22,500 in 403(b) deferral and $43,500 in PS allocation in solo401(k). Both 403(b) and solo 401(k) are integrated for purposes of 415. Do you agree?
• Scenario 2 -- everything is the same as above but the business is NOT a medical practice. Let's say it is a medical technician type of activity. Does the answer change? Scenario 3 -- the organization is NOT a non-profit hospital but rather the educational institution (University of State for example). Does the answer change?

"I am looking to understand the general framework when the non-profit 403(b) MUST be aggregated with the individual 401(k) and what are the exception to that exception of 'separate employers' rule. I think there are some exceptions to exception and that is where it gets very muddy for me."

"Good afternoon, CPA here auditing a plan and hoping to run by an error encountered in the first-ever audit of a 401(k) plan. Facts are as follows:

• From inception 1/1/2019 through 12/31/20, the effective plan document had a 1 year service requirement with monthly entry and an autoenrollment feature. During this period, the plan operated as if the eligibility was immediate upon hire.
• Effective 1/1/21, the plan was restated to change the eligibility/entry date provisions to immediate and removed the autoenrollment feature.

My question is: Can the plan sponsor correct the error related to the 2019 and 2020 plan years through the SCP under Revenue Procedure 2021-30 by retroactively amending the plan's service and entry date requirements to immediate to conform to how the plan operated during 2019 and 2020? Based on my reading if the Rev Proc, I would think the answer is yes as the amendment resulted in 'an increase of a benefit, right, or feature', but am wondering if I am missing something?"

"There is an existing DB Plan with the only participant being the owner. The Corp then hires an employee and wants to join a PEO. How dies this effect the existing DB Plan? Is the new employee really an employee of the Corp?"

"I have a client who is currently contributing for their field employees $4 per hour into the 401k plan. This is tested under 401(a)(4) testing by the recordkeeper. it is not Prevailing Wage, just profit sharing. The client wants to change the arrangement so that employees will have the option of either continuing to receive a $4 per hour contribution into the plan OR getting a $3 per hour pay raise. What are the implications of this? Since employees will have a choice, has the employer effectively given a pay raise to all of them of either $4 per hour or $3 per hour, depending on what they elect? I would think that previously the employer was taking a tax deduction for the employer contribution, but under this new arrangement employees who elect to receive the $4 per hour contributed to the plan are really just contributing their own pay, so this is no longer an employer deduction? And the employer will now need to pay applicable payroll taxes, etc on these raises? Also this seems really confusing in the case of an employee who is currently already contributing to the 401k plan as a% of their pay, and now they elect to continue to receive the $4 per hour into the plan. Doesn't that conflict with their deferral election?"