"I know there is a pop section 125 safe harbor from further discrimination testing if you pass the eligibility test. I'm newer to this and a bit confused. Below is the situation- does it qualify for the safe harbor eligibility test and if not why not? My concern is that the 1 and only HCE is enrolled so that's 100% and the 40/190 is 21% but the 40/500 is only 8% and I'm not sure if the denominator for the formula includes all those new employees in initial measurement periods and ongoing employees in new measurement periods. [1] fully insured [2] all participants are offered the identical benefits for identical pricing with identical eligibility rules [3] only 1 HCE and they are enrolled [4] at any given time 190 employees on payroll roughly [5] 500 w2s created at year end (high turn over retail) [6] 40 are eligible for benefits in any given year [7] all other active employees are either [1] in initial one year measurement period as variable hour new hires or [2] ongoing employees in a new measurement period [8] every employee is eligible if they average 30 hours a week during a measurement period (no different treatment by class/title)"

"Plan L is adopted by two employers, Company L and Company A, in a controlled group (due to common ownership). Company L is being purchased in a stock sale effective 8/31/26 but Company A is not being purchased. We're amending Plan L so that Company A is the 'lead sponsor' and will change the plan name to reflect Company A. Purchaser's intent is to allow Company L to continue to operate as is for a few months and then dissolve Company L and transfer the employees to Purchaser's company on 10/31/26. Purchaser has no desire to merge the plans (which they can't fully because Company A still exists). What are the options? Do they change depending on if we're talking in September vs. December? My initial thought was that since it's an asset sale with Company L continuing that Company L's participants will all get transferred over to Purchaser's Plan in September, but what if we wait it out through December and they are no longer employed by Company L?"

"Our plan provides the option to contribute After-Tax. We do not require separate enrollment for catch-up contributions and have chosen to automatically shift contributions from pretax to Roth once the employee has reached the 402g limit, for the Roth Catch-up required employees. We have Roth Catch-up Required employees who have already reached the 415 limit, plus catch-up, using combinations of pretax deferrals and After-Tax contributions. Assuming the employee has not exceeded the 402(g) limit in pretax deferrals, do we need to recharacterize the pretax amounts to be Roth? Example: Roth Required Catch-up employee has contributed $13,000 pretax and $67,000 After-tax. Would we need to adjust $8000 to be Roth?"

"If an employee is an HPE and contributed maximum in deferrals (including catch up) for 2026 as a Pre-Tax contribution, would doing an In-Plan Roth conversion of the Catch Up portion work as the correction method? The catch up amount needs to be adjusted for earnings?"

"We took over a plan in 2023 that was coming out of a MEP.... This plan was an individual plan that went to the MEP in 2022. They then went back to an individual plan in 2023 with us. When we wrote the new individual plan in 2023 we thought it was a restatement of the 1st plan and not a new plan -- that the MEP was part of the continuation. The first plan was plan #001 and our restated plan was #001. The prior TPA never filed a 2022 5500SF for the original plan as they thought the MEP was taking care of 2022. The client got correspondence from the IRS about the missing 2022 5500SF for #001. Meanwhile, before that correspondence was received we had filed a 2023 and 2024 5500SF for the post MEP plan using #001. We have since redone the post MEP plan document to be a new plan established in 2023 with plan number 003. We filed a final short plan year 2022 5500SF for 001 using the DFVC program. We now need to amend the 2023 and 2024 filings that were done under 001 to file under 003. I think we just do that and expect correspondence since I believe the DOL/IRS system goes by EIN and plan number. We will likely get correspondence that the amended 2023 and 2024 are late. Do we just let this happen and then explain when the correspondence comes? Is this all correct thinking or should it be done another way?"

"I am sure we have all run into the scenario before. You complete the annual valuation and find there are a high number of former employees who just leave their benefits in the plan despite benefit elections being sent to them. For example, suppose you have a 50 participant plan and 20 participants are former employees who terminated more than 2 years ago. Of the 20, 15 have vested benefits of more than $7,000. We generally have the plan send those who are not cooperative with vested benefits of less than $7,000 to a default IRA custodian. For those with higher vested benefits, we contact them year after year and provide them with benefit elections. Generally we get no cooperation. The plan sponsor wants us to notify these former employees, let them know that they can leave their benefits in the plan but then they will be charged $450 per year starting this October 31. Has anyone had experience with this?"

"We always file Form 5558 if extending a plan's 5500. However, sometimes, for a variety of reasons, a 5558 is missed, but it is confirmed that they meet the requirements for filing late under an Automatic Extension. I was curious if there is a trend to not file a 5558 if it is know the Plan Sponsor has filed an Automatic Extension and their fiscal year matches the plan year?"