"An ASG has two entities, one very large with few HCEs and many NHCEs, the other very small with a high percentage of HCEs. Each entity sponsors its own 401(k)/401(m) plan (no non-elective contributions). The plans have different testing methods (one prior year, one current year). The high percentage of HCEs means the small plan can't pass coverage alone, it must be aggregated with the large plan. But aggregation is precluded because the plans have different testing methods. My thought is to file a VCP asking to change the testing year of the small plan to allow aggregation (SECURE 2.0 doesn't allow this demographic failure to be corrected through SCP). If we do that, each plan on its own, and in the aggregate, passes ADP/ACP. Under those circumstances:

1. Does anyone have any experience with such a correction through VCP? Anything I should be aware of that might come up?
2. Does the IRS readily grant corrections in that manner?
3. Is there any risk the IRS will require QNECs to be made to NHCEs in the large company? (QNECs are the usual way to correct coverage failures. Here, QNECs don't do any good, because even if QNECs are made to NHCEs in the large company, the plans still can't be aggregated unless they have the same testing methods. So it doesn't seem like the IRS would require QNECs as a solution. But given the large number of NHCEs, possibly having to make a QNEC is concerning. Under the circumstances, does it seem unlikely the IRS would require QNECs?)
4. Assuming the IRS allows the testing year to be changed and the plans are tested on an aggregated basis, will the IRS require the plans to pass a benefits, rights, and features test?'

"Hello, just a quick question: The Basic Plan Document has pretty much all iterations of things regarding a plan (in reference: Non-Standardized, Pre-Approved), but the Adoption Agreement is obviously the document that the Plan Sponsor adopts their elected provisions. We came across a nuanced issue today that wasn't outlined in the adoption agreement, but had reference/justification in the Basic Plan Document. Is said-issue able to be permitted by being outlined in the Basic Plan Document, but not the Adoption Agreement? Or does the Adoption Agreement have to explicitly permit every action the Plan Sponsor makes because the Basic Plan Document is 'all encompassing'?"

"Does anyone know if there is a time frame in which it needs to be signed? for example even though there is a one year waiting period can this form be provided when the person starts employment or does it need to be within 90 days of their enrollment."

"I started a new job in 2023. I have never had an HSA before and that was all that my employer offered. My wife has always had an FSA. Later in 2023, I realized there was an issue with me having HSA and her FSA. I spoke with the custodian (Bank of America) and they keep telling me that since we are on individual plans, then our current arrangement is not an issue. However, everything I see says that her FSA is allowed to be used for a spouse even if they are not on the health care plan. This, by default, means I am not allowed to have an HSA. Is Bank of America just not understanding the situation? I would think they should know, but I am nervous to leave things as is if that means I am stuck with a penalty at tax time."

"I retired in May after 26 years in a public school system. I had taken one 6,000 loan out in 2016 due to hardship and then another loan for covid hardship in 2020. They made no mention of an outstanding defaulted loan in 2020. in fact, all of my annuity was with metlife and they split it into two when they sold out to Brighthouse. now they treated these annuity as two separate annuities. It took them months and an OCI involvement to attempt to have my Annuity roll over to another 403B with another company. It took them so long that in fact, a close my account due to no activity. I took an early withdrawal from one account that had the hardship COVID loan.. I was told that Brighthouse account had $28,000 in it. Several times I was told that there was no loan attached to it when I was no longer able to roll over and it had been 10 months of fighting. I asked them to just take a whole lump sum out. The amount I got was $4600, they took out for taxes on the defaulted loan as they used it as a gross amount and they took $17,000 in interest I have more than enough money in both accounts to cover the loan. Once during this entire 10 months, they mention the 17th interest in fact on my quarterly statements the 17,000 is stated as collateral and no interest is written on the metlife. There was collateral of $892.00 and 1100.00 interest. To be the collateral with the over 50% that you needed in order to take out alone in the first place."

"I am born on 12/30/1950 and am more than 5% owner. Is my RBD 4/1/2023? Is my second RMD due 12/31/2023?"