"Can a 401(k) plan require its participants to be scheduled to work at least 20 hours a week to receive an employer match? Employees are eligible to enter the plan on their hire date, but I'm wondering whether a plan could restrict the match to only those employees who are scheduled to work at least 20 hours a week."

[Sponsored]

Gain insights from our technology experts on how IT modernization is transforming retirement and pension operations. Navigate the future of the retirement industry with confidence and innovation. Don't miss this opportunity -- tune in now!

"The PSC requires last day and 1000 hours if the plan has 3% SHNEC, then for those participants who worked less than 1000 hours or terminated in the plan year will need to get PSC to meet gateway regardless PSC allocation conditions. How about SHM? SHM is not included in gateway test, but if a participant made deferrals and is entitled to SHM but didn't meet PSC allocation conditions. Then is he/she required to get PSC to meet gateway minimum or he/she doesn't need to be tested on gateway test?"

"Legal settlement agreement calls for (among many things) no company contribution to a (now) former employee and plan participant. Covers what would have been a short plan year for the former employee. The employee did make some 401(k) contributions, and would be eligible for safe harbor plus profit sharing company contributions. Simple question -- can this be done?"

"Participant makes a Roth 401k election 1/1/24, they just notice that nothing is being withheld from paycheck in June, however, the correct Roth contributions per election have been funded to participant's Roth account (not sure how this happened). So, nothing withheld from paycheck but Roth is funded. The correction, in my thought process, is MDO, since failure to implement correctly. I would use EPCRs to correct the MDO, provide notice and fund a qnec, but question about the Roth that has been funded. My thought was to transfer the $5k that has been funded out of his Roth to the forfeiture account and use later. Is there an issue with that since it is in a Roth source? Is there a better solution in this case?"

"Company was purchased by another in October. Calendar year plan year for welfare benefit plans. It was a quick sale apparently with no contractual guidance on sponsorship of the benefits, but they continued through the end of the year (& actually still continue). They are planning to have the 5500 filed under the name of the original owner who contracted the insurance carriers file for the full plan year. Ever seen where they file a short plan year and close out the plan, and the new owner would take over the 5500 filing for the last few months for another short plan year? Or very simply show the new owner as the plan sponsor as of a 12/31 snapshot of the plan?"

"I'm not aware of any formal guidance on this issue -- plans are often effective January 1 in such situations to avoid prorating limits, etc. Curious as to how folks generally feel about this? The EOB refers to an old IRS Q&A response at an ASPPA meeting opining that it was allowable, but of course that's unofficial. (Naturally, no retroactive deferrals allowed!) Thoughts?"

"If you are (or know) a small TPA (<300 plans) looking to begin a transition to retirement and want your clients to get the amazing service they are used to with a family-owned, well-established TPA firm (currently <1000 clients), please send me a private message. My firm is family-owned and operated, has been in business for 40+ years, and has a full succession plan in place. We have the infrastructure and processes to take on a block of business while still providing the personalized service of a small TPA. If you don't want to sell out to private equity, VCs, or the huge national recordkeepers acquiring TPAs (I am bringing those clients on fairly often when they get upset that they lost the personal touch), we may be a good fit. I am willing to entertain various business structures."

"[A number of] cases hold that if a divorced Participant has remarried and retired before a QDRO has been perfected, Federal law holds that the Participant's new spouse vests in the right to receive the survivor annuity and the former spouse (prospective Alternate Payee) irrevocably(?) loses the right to receive that survivor annuity.... But I come across statements from time to time that if the new spouse consents to waiving her right to survivor annuity benefits (how that happens is never addressed), then a QDRO can be effective to restore survivor annuity benefit to the former spouse. I also have contemplated what would happen is the new spouse predeceased the Participant, or if the Participant and the new spouse divorced, whether not a new QDRO could restore QJSA rights to the former spouse? Any ideas? Case law? Statutory references?"