"401(k) plan with a 1/1 to 12/31 plan year, union and non-union employees, and they utilize the prior year testing method. In 2024, an ADP test is completed separately for union and non-union employees, due to the mandatory disaggregation rules. An ACP test is completed for the non-union employees (union group deemed to pass ACP). On 1/1/2025, the union is dissolved/decertified. All union employees are now considered non-union effective 1/1/2025. So for 2025, there is just one ADP/ACP test (given that all employees were non-union in 2025). When determining the prior year percent for the ADP test -- is there any guidance on what to use? Do you just use the 2024 non-union NHCE average and disregard the 2024 union NHCE average? Calculate a weighted average? If a weighted average should be used, then how would you go about determining the NHCE average for the ACP test (given that there was no ACP test in 2024 for the union group)?"

[Sponsored]

March 15 is unforgiving. ASC automatically identifies failed tests, calculates refunds, adjusts allocations, and produces correction reports -- batch processed, audit-ready. Eliminate refund stress. 

"I don't know why but it seems for one plan they don't know how to obtain the Section 125 pay to provide with the annual census. Shouldn't that be an easy request from Payroll?"

"What is your take on an employer offering two-employee, married, family plans? In general, these could be cheaper than asking each employee to fund a plan. Does this violate ERISA if all employees of these 'similarly situated individuals' are offered this discounted plan?"

"I have a new Solo plan client that needs help cleaning up the plan. They had been flipping real estate and we are current investigating the possible errors that are in addition to not filing the 5500-EZ for a few years. My question is does VCP make sense for them and should this be done by an ERISA attorney instead of a TPA firm?"

"A recordkeeper offers a new service it designed to help a retirement plan find a participant classified as one likely to be 'missing' or unresponsive. In form, the plan's administrator or other responsible plan fiduciary sets the factors on who is treated as an individual this service applies to. But in practical reality, the plan's fiduciary does this by adopting the criteria the recordkeeper wants the administrator to instruct....

'If a plan's responsible plan fiduciary authorizes the service, the recordkeeper uses a series of steps meant to find the individual, find a good address, and communicate with the individual with a hope of persuading the individual to attend to her account (or accept a payment if a distribution was provided). The fee is $30 a year while the individual is not yet satisfactorily located. The fee is charged against each individual's account.... The recordkeeper requires the plan's administrator to confirm that this fee is sufficiently disclosed, whether in a rule 404a-5 disclosure or another communication.

'My worry is that a participant might feel unfairly burdened by a few years' or even one year's $30 charge when the individual feels the service is one she did not request, and that the service did not benefit her. ... Do you think this $30-a-year charge is fair to a to-be-located participant? If an individual is not yet nearing an involuntary distribution (whether a cash-out, or a Section 401(a)(9)-required distribution), should a plan's fiduciary unburden such a participant from the $30-a-year charge by omitting the individual from the to-be-located class? Should a plan's fiduciary consider probabilities of success or failure? If an individual's undistributed account is $300 and the fiduciary believes the probability of causing the individual to add a functional postal or email address to her account is no more than 10%, should a fiduciary not apply the locator service? (Assume the plan has people with small balances because the plan does not provide a $7,000 cash-out.)"

"Anyone ever come across an ERISA DB plan administrator who refuses to qualify QDROs employing a time rule (coverture fraction) division for benefits in pay status? I am dealing with one, first one ever in 30 years of practice."

"QDRO filed in 2022. Separate 401k account established. The alternate payee (former spouse) is required to take the first RMD based on the participant reaching 73 this year, 2026. As I understand it, Treasury Regulations designate the Universal Life table for the calculation of the RMD. Fidelity has calculated the RMD using the Single Life Table. Eleven days after requesting clarification, Fidelity has continued to refuse to offer further explanation except to say 'we have done the calculation and we're not changing it.' Followed later in the conversation with 'if you do not take the distribution voluntarily, you will be forced to take it.' Am I destined to loose this argument? Can they actually do this? Am I missing something and I am actually in the wrong?"