Recurring 410(b) failures are rarely random.<\/p>\n
When a plan consistently struggles with coverage testing, it\u2019s not bad luck. It\u2019s structural.<\/p>\n
Maybe the ownership group is highly compensated and aging while rank-and-file turnover is high. Maybe eligibility rules were designed for a workforce that no longer exists. Maybe compensation definitions create unintended exclusions.<\/p>\n
The coverage test isn\u2019t just a compliance hurdle. It\u2019s diagnostic.<\/p>\n
Too many providers treat testing failures as technical puzzles to be solved at year-end \u2014 add a QNEC here, adjust a gateway there, lean on fail-safe language. Problem fixed. Until next year.<\/p>\n
But if you\u2019re fixing the same problem repeatedly, you\u2019re not solving it. You\u2019re patching it.<\/p>\n
Coverage failures often signal deeper design misalignment between the business model and the retirement plan. A growing professional services firm needs a different structure than a seasonal employer. A closely held company with family ownership requires intentional design from day one.<\/p>\n
The providers who stand out don\u2019t just \u201crun the test.\u201d They interpret it. They go back to the sponsor and say, \u201cHere\u2019s what this is telling us about your workforce.\u201d<\/p>\n
That conversation elevates you from processor to advisor.<\/p>\n
Testing is not just about passing. It\u2019s about understanding.<\/p>\n
If 410(b) keeps flashing red, it\u2019s not the test that\u2019s broken.<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Recurring 410(b) failures are rarely random. When a plan consistently struggles with coverage testing, it\u2019s not bad luck. It\u2019s structural. Maybe the ownership group is highly compensated and aging while rank-and-file turnover is high. Maybe eligibility rules were designed for … Continue reading