"An employer wants to have a 3 month eligibility and 520 hours worked within the 3 month period. I was very confident telling the employer that if you want to attach an hourly requirement to a shortened eligibility period, using 1,000 hours for a 12 month period as my base, hours would need to be prorated accordingly, i.e., 250 hours for a 3 month eligibility period. The advisor pushed back, asking for the document provision that does not allow 520 hours worked in a 3 month period. Reviewing the adoption agreement and basic plan document, there actually is nothing in the document that prohibits having this in the adoption agreement. The employer is aware of the LTPT rules and also aware that no matter what the plan's eligibility requirement is, if an employee completes 1,000 hours in a 12 month period, they must be allowed to enter the plan unless they are in an excluded class. Does my alternative argument to not allow this in the document hold water? While the document allows flexibility, IRS rules under IRC Section 410(a) still apply:

• A plan cannot impose eligibility conditions that effectively prevent participants from qualifying within the maximum permissible timeframe.
• If you reduce the service period to 3 months, the required number of hours must be reasonable for that duration. 520 hours over 3 months (~40 hrs/week) is seen as unduly restrictive by IRS standards.

Therefore, even if the document doesn't prohibit it, adopting a 520-hour rule in a 3-month window could jeopardize plan qualification if audited."

"Both former spouses work in the same company. If the rollover due to QDRO is moved from one spouse's 401(k) account to another's (within the same plan), would it be considered a Related Rollover or an Unrelated Rollover (for Top Heavy purposes)?"

"Of the many tax-qualification conditions and other rules a recordkeeper's system hopes to help a retirement plan's administrator apply, a few might turn on whether a participant is an employee or is a self-employed individual (who might be treated as a deemed employee). Among these, a Section 414(v)(7) restriction against non-Roth catch-up deferrals does not apply to a participant who is a self-employed individual (who has no FICA wages).

"I've seen in recordkeepers' systems Yes-or-No indicators for whether a participant is: union-represented, treated as an insider for trading in employer securities, an officer of the employer, or a super-officer. Does a recordkeeper have an indicator for whether a participant is an employee or is a self-employed individual? (I recognize a use of this depends on the census information furnished to the recordkeeper.)

"A sort for participants who might be Section 414(v)(7)-affected might look for those with compensation that suggests that FICA wages for a relevant year might exceed $145,000/$150,000. But without a further sort, that might result in 'false positives' by including deemed employees who have compensation but no FICA wages. (Imagine a professional-services business in which hundreds of workers are partners.) Could an employee-or-self indicator sort out this out?

"If a recordkeeper lacks such an indicator but has a field for ownership percentage, might one use that as a way to classify a self-employed individual? For example, if a worker's ownership percentage is less than 1% (so it doesn't trigger other rules) and perhaps as little as 0.0001, could that classify the participant as one who can't be Section 414(v)(7)-affected? (I'm mindful that an employer has the facts, and could control the plan administrator's communications. But I seek to learn about what communications a recordkeeper can do without the employer/administrator's effort.)"

"Are services as a directed trustee considered 'fiduciary' services as contemplated by this exemption? I would expect that it is really aimed at preventing self-dealing, and the residual fiduciary obligations of a directed trustee do not rise to this level."