"This is a long shot I know But I am looking for the version of the E*TRADE Prototype Standardized PSP, BPD and AA. This is a group plan not the solo(k). I would like the plan in effect in 2013. Before I write to the IRS, I am hoping someone has one lying around. E-TRADE CLEARING LLC INC RANCHO CORDOVA, CA 312D4162701-004 STANDARDIZED PROFIT SHARING/CODA M288284"

[Sponsored]

PlanPort revolutionizes how advisors, recordkeepers, and TPAs use retirement plan documents across their business operations –- delivering efficiency, accuracy, review, and automation like never before. Now supporting ftwilliam document system integration. 

"An employer maintains a safe harbor 401(k) plan that provides for a safe harbor matching contribution of 100% of elective deferrals that do not exceed 4% of compensation. Since the plan's inception several years ago, the employer has inadvertently provided a match of 100% of elective deferrals up to only 3% of compensation. So, each year, anyone deferring more than 3% has missed out on a matching contribution on 1% of compensation.

"EPCRS doesn't specifically address this failure, but it seems that the logical way to correct is to make a contribution of the 1% match, plus earnings, to all affected participants for all affected years. In describing the allowable correction methods, Appendix A of Rev. Proc. 2021-30 provides that, if in addition to a failure to make a contribution, a 401(k) plan also failed the ADP test or ACP test, the correction methods under Appendix A cannot be used until after correction of the ADP or ACP test failures.

"In this case, although this is intended to be a safe harbor plan, the employer failed to make the required safe harbor contribution for some participants. So, technically, the plan was not operated as a safe harbor plan in those years. Does this mean that the employer is required to run the ADP/ACP tests for all of those years, correct any failures of ADP/ACP, and then correct the failure to make the matching contribution? It seems to me that by simply making the corrective contribution of the missing 1% match (plus earnings) to all affected participants, the plan will be restored to safe harbor status for all years, making the ADP/ACP tests inapplicable, so it shouldn't be necessary to run the ADP/ACP tests for all affected years. I would appreciate all input!"

"An employee was permitted to defer in 2024 prior to her actual date of participation. The trustee did not want to retroactively amend the plan to allow her to be a valid participant when her early deferrals were made, instead the early deferrals were refunded to her in 2026. The document does not address the remedy for this situation. I'm guessing the refunded deferrals would be included in her 2026 W-2 -- would a 2026 1099-R need to issued to her for this refund?"

"Yesterday's proposed interpretation about selecting designated investment alternatives for an individual-account retirement plan that provides participant-directed investment seems to focus on a fiduciary's decision-making about the investment merits of an investment alternative. A subpart about complexity speaks to whether the fiduciary knows enough, or with an adviser can know enough, to evaluate, thoughtfully, an investment's risks and potential rewards related to the complexities.

"Some people think a fiduciary ought to consider whether a typical participant can understand the complexities and risks of a designated investment alternative. Even if a fiduciary has done a prudent-expert job in setting the menu, a participant decides whether and how to use an investment alternative.

"Others think it's unnecessary to consider whether a participant can understand a more complex investment alternative because a typical participant cannot understand even the simpler alternative, shares of a publicly available mutual fund regulated by Federal securities laws. BenefitsLink neighbors, which is your view? And why?"