Do either of the following allocation group structures violate the definitely determinable rule for a profit sharing allocation or any other provision for that matter?

Group 1: physicians receiving 10% profit sharing allocation
Group 2: physicians receiving 6% profit sharing allocation
Group 3: physicians receiving 4% profit sharing allocation
Group 4: all other employees

OR

Group 1: owners electing to receive the maximum allocation under section 415
Group 2: owners electing to receive $0 profit sharing allocation
Group 3: owners electing to determine their contributions each year and allocate on a pro-rata basis
Group 4: all other employees

I don't like either group.

The first one seems like a circular definition that doesn't say anything. Who are the physicians receiving a 10% allocation? Well, the ones receiving a 10% allocation of course. And who exactly are they...?

The second group is really awful language, IMO. It might be definitely determinable if you had an election on file to look at and thereby determine the appropriate group, but it screams "deemed CODA."

If the first breakout of groupings of physicians is referring to the profits of the medical practice, per a lockstep partnership agreement, for example, then that would be the factor of independent significance that Bird is concerned about.

I think Bird is correct about the second breakout of groupings of owners. It looks like a nonqualified CODA.