"Because of the recent litigation regarding usage of forfeitures, wanted to get some back up for how this is being viewed in 401(k) and other participant directed account plans. Forfeitures must be used according to the plan document and most big providers have the standard 'pay plan expenses' and reduce employer contributions. Some also have the prorata allocation. Given all of that, we have seen it recommended that the forfeitures be used for participant education, specifically financial wellness. That also being a way to deplete the forfeiture account when the plan sponsor is paying the fees and/or does not have contributions to reduce. Any thoughts on this being a reasonable 'plan expense' noting here that I have reviewed Section 2550.404a-5 as well as the settlor vs permitted plan expenses the DOL has opined on and it does indicate educational seminars and retirement planning software is permitted. So if it is permitted -- does the financial education need to be specific to retirement planning or is overall financial wellness ok or is there some gray area?"

[Sponsored]

ASC’s “Fundamentals Series” provides the basic, essential knowledge for new and experienced professionals. Session 5 covers Plan Docs, IRS/DOL Audits, Plan Correction Programs & Gov’t Filings. Previous recorded sessions available. Register Now

"I have a small plan that has always consisted of only 4 owners. Funding their PS has never been an issue until now when they've started to hire part time employees. The coverage test is failing. FACTS:

1. Eligibility is 21 and 3 months svc with monthly entry.
2. They exclude part time (PT) employees
3. 3 year Vesting

• PT EE #1 -- Hired 5/13/2022. Termed 4/20/23. Excluded PT but met eligibility & could enter 9/1/22
• PT EE #2 -- Hired 5/16/2023. Termed 8/7/23. Excluded PT and termed before entry.
• PT EE #3 -- Hired 10/11/23. Excluded PT and still working PT. Would enter 2/1/24

PT EE #1 who would have been eligible has terminated and would be 0% vested. I guess my question is an 11g amendment required here or could PT EE #1 meet statutory exclusion and be excluded from tests? If I have to do an 11g amendment and I need to expand coverage what is the best way to do so? Who would get an allocation? The one possibly eligible PT'er is gone and would be 0% vested. PT EE #2 termed before entry. And PT EE #3 is meeting eligibility in 2024. What is the solution here?"

"Company B will be purchased by company A on 5/1. Company B has a non-safe harbor 401k plan and company A has a safe harbor plan. What are the options mid-year -- can the non-safe harbor plan be merged mid-year into the safe harbor plan? I would think best practice is to use the IRC 410(b)(6) transition period at least through end of the 2024 plan year and then merge at end of plan year? Or freeze plan B, allow employees to join plan A and merge at plan year end. Any thoughts?"

"My Divorce Decree says that my ex-wife is entitled to 'any benefits under my pension plan' Does that also mean she is entitled to health care when I retire or a payment I am required to make to pay for part of her health care?"

"Client forgot to enroll an eligible employee and has missed deferrals in a tax exempt 457(b) plan that the employer participates in. My understanding is that, since there is limited opportunity to submit corrections to the IRS under Section 4.09 of EPCRS, that practitioners interpret that to mean that corrections for 457(b) plans can generally follow those prescribed under EPCRS for qualified plans. So in this case we would make corrective contributions for the participant's missed opportunity to make a contribution/invest (e.g., 50% of missed deferral) as under EPCRS."

"I have a plan failing the 414(s) Compensation Test. They only have deferrals and I am already assuming a 3% De Minimis percentage. I'm not sure how to correct this since it's not affecting employer contributions. Would the employer be responsible for 'missed deferrals' on the bonus amounts? Or, if the plan passes the Average Benefit Percentage test will it be deemed to pass?"

"A DB plan excludes HCEs (other than the two owners) and requires one year of service for NHCEs. For 2023 all eligible NHCEs are participating, but the plan needs to include one more participant to satisfy the 40% requirement of (a)(26) minimum participation. There are several HCEs who would have the one YOS in 2023, and there are several NHCEs who were first hired in 2023 and do not have the one YOS. If an amendment brings in one HCE retroactively for 2023, would that be a discriminatory amendment under 11(g) standards? Since the newly hired NHCEs are statutory excludables for 2023, we can ignore them for coverage. But an amendment granting a meaningful benefit just to one HCE is concerning to me. We discussed that they can alternatively bring in one NHCE early and grant the benefit (of course, testing under 410(b) would now have to include everyone with that reduced eligibility), but the plan sponsor would like to grant the benefit to this one HCE. Is this a problem or am I just overthinking this?"

"I've got this cute little MEP with two adopting employers -- it would be a CG except that they are owned by different brothers. It would be an ASG except it's a construction business so it can't be. So MEP it is. In Co1, two brothers have a partnership that always operates at a loss. In Co2, all four brothers own an S-corp and earn $500K+ each. They finally have non-union employees who are becoming eligible. Presuming they listen to me and only pay them from Co1, then top heavy is a non-issue. No keys have any benefit in Co1's portion of the plan (because they never have positive income there). And.... the fact that these same partners are putting away the max through Co2 is not a problem. Or is it? I've got something nagging at me about maybe there IS aggregation here, but I can't find anything in any MEP resource that supports that."