All Activity

I may or may not have seen some of these manually signed documents due to "issues with electronic signature software" and other similar explanations.

A firm’s mix of capital-interest partners, income partners, retired partners, counsel, senior associates, beginner associates, and assistants might affect: which workers seem likely to desire an opportunity to make employee (after-tax) contributions; how student debt affects a worker’s capacity to make contributions; how the expenses of QMACs are spread—for example: to capital-interest partners only? or to an income partner to the extent, wholly or partly, an associate or assistant in her income-measured practice gets a QMAC?; how much or how little leverage affects partners’ capital and profits interests; how the firm’s obligations to retired partners affects the firm’s financial capabilities; how a retirement plan’s design and features affects workers’ perceptions about the firm.

I'm definitely looking into the top paid group. I think the line will be north of $200K, but less than $500K. 2025 is literally the first plan year, so I don't have full data yet. What's the goal of your last question?

Targeted bottom-up QNECs to the ACP test with those rules. Sounds fun enough.

Now that service providers use electronic-signature regimes, have plan sponsors invented new explanations about why a signature was not received before year-turn?

What amount is the law firm’s line between the lower 80% and the top-paid 20%. Might the lower 80% include many or some with seven-figure compensation? Might the lower 80% include many more with compensation between $360,000 and $1 million? What is the firm’s mix of capital-interest partners, income partners, counsel, senior associates, beginner associates, and assistants?

Might everyone with a tie to R, A, or A’s broker-dealer or investment-adviser firm have recused and an experienced fiduciary independent of R, A, and the platform have decided, with no influence from anyone, to continue A’s services and approve the compensation arrangement? See 29 C.F.R. § 2550.408b-2(e)(2) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/part-2550/section-2550.408b-2#p-2550.408b-2(e)(2). Had the independent fiduciary confirmed that A’s broker-dealer or investment-adviser firm received full and fair disclosure of all of A’s outside business activities, including A’s indirect stake in R and that R’s retirement plan is a customer or client? Had the independent fiduciary confirmed that A’s broker-dealer or investment-adviser firm approved all dealings? Had the independent fiduciary confirmed that the platform received full and fair disclosure of A’s indirect stake in R, recognizing that R’s retirement plan is the platform’s service recipient and a source of A’s indirect compensation? Had the independent fiduciary confirmed that the platform approved all dealings? Have the plan’s administrator, its third-party administrator or other Form 5500 preparer, and the administrator’s independent qualified public accountant resolved how the Form 5500 report and the plan’s financial statements will report the transactions, including, even if exempt, related-party transactions? Does every fiduciary, including those who recused, have an absence of knowledge that the independent fiduciary breached its responsibility? This is not advice to anyone.

There was a time, in the days of old when knights were bold, (and with a prior employer) when we would receive a suspicious number of signed and dated resolutions and document signature pages at year end, and the rest of the document later on after the end of the year. Fortunately we don't see that these days.

Maybe top-paid group would help?

I have a large law firm client that recently asked about mega backdoor Roth and voluntary after-tax contributions in general. I explained the ACP test issue and after a slight pause, one of the partners said, "but that can be resolved by making a company contribution instead of refunds, right?" They are actually considering corrective QMACs to let their highly paid (and, coincidentally, HPI) participants do this. Sure, it works mathematically if they don't mind spending the money, but I have to wonder if it will really work out better than adjusting their class-based profit sharing.

Agreed with Artie. If it's a direct COBRA subsidy, it would generally be tax-free in the same manner as any employer-share of the health plan premium (active, retiree, or COBRA) under §106. The former employee would receive it only if they timely elected COBRA. If it's a taxable cash payment intended as a COBRA subsidy, in most cases the former employee receives it regardless of a COBRA election. That cash payment would always be taxable. The taxable approach is common for employers with self-insured plans to avoid §105(h) nondiscrimination issues. More details: https://www.newfront.com/blog/cobra-subsidies-reimbursement-2 Slide summary: 2025 Newfront COBRA for Employers Guide

Thank you!

mjbais1489, thank you for your helpful observations. I see how they could be worries with many employers. For the particular employer I’m thinking about, the only worker who submits information to the payroll service provider or to the retirement plan’s recordkeeper is the same human-resources worker who manages the retirement plan’s design and administration. And she is adept at catching both service providers’ errors. I’d explain that the time of the human-resources worker in correcting the service providers’ errors might be a meaningful burden. For the particular workforce, uses of an after-tax contribution, even restricted to nonhighly-compensated employees, would not be few. For this plan, eligibility begins when the employment begins. Participation for elective deferrals hovers between 99 and 100%, even for new hires. There is no meeting to explain the retirement plan. The plan has no adviser. (I advise the plan sponsor on nonfiduciary points, and advise the sponsor/administrator by writing the SPD.) austin3515, your point is something I’d usually advise, but is not a worry for the workforce that caused me to think about whether it could be feasible to allow employee contributions. But John Feldt’s note ends my thinking about reconsidering a plan-design choice made many years ago. Even one unnecessary weak number in the ACP test could attract terrible trouble.

No issues there, it's not like they have to follow the rules for safe harbor plans' lengths. Just make it a full plan year with deferrals effective 12/23 or whatever. But as John referenced, no document means no plan means no deferring out of order.

We started a new plan for Company R in 2025, and we just found out that the plan's financial advisor (through a shell company he owns 100% of) purchased 10% of Company R's stock sometime in 2025. The plan is on a recordkeeping platform that pays the advisory form some amount of bp (50, I think). This seems to be a prohibited transaction; I don't see any way for the FA to keep getting paid on this. And he should return all the fees paid to him since the purchase (with earnings) to restore the plan. Anything else I'm missing? Thanks.

So they can set up the plan before year end and make deferral contributions from a year end bonus for 2025?

They can only defer from W-2 wages not yet paid. They can only defer from wages paid once the 401(k) plan document and trust agreement is executed (signed). They have to be eligible under the terms of the plan. A deferral election is also required. Other than noting today’s date on the calendar, and the other 50 requests coming in today for a plan document to allow deferrals in 2025, that all sounds easy, right?

I will also add that allowing after-tax and Roth could be making it easy for employees to do something stupid, like contribute after-tax contributions without first maxing out their Roth 401(k). That's probably the most obvious issue with adding after-tax contributions in general.

Peter, you asked: Is there another reason why a plan’s sponsor might prefer not to allow nonhighly-compensated employees to make an employee (after-tax) contribution? Yes, there is. When you run an ACP test, you only include the employees eligible for the match. So, if the match allocation has conditions, like last day or 1000 hours, then those employees aren’t in the ACP test. Yay. BUT, as soon as you allow after-tax, everyone eligible to contribute after-tax is now in your ACP test, even those that did not meet the conditions for the match. That could add a whole lot of NHCEs with zeros to the ACP test.

Received a call from an Advisor. He has a prospect with 2 Partners, no employees. It is an LLC taxed as an S Corp and the 2 partners receive W-2 income. The Advisor and CPA want to set up the plan for 2025 and have the partners make the maximum deferrals before year end from a bonus check. The plan can be set up for 2025 but can they make the employee deferral contributions at this late date for the 2025 year? I question it because they take W-2 comp and not Schedule C or K-1.

Im on the advisor side. The downsides I see aren't testing related they are process & communication related. Process - this likely wont happen very often, is the payroll team strong enough for the employer to make sure its handled correctly every time it does happen (they will have to be re-explained the rules every time it happens and I wouldn't be surprised if a payroll person told an employee it wasn't possible on accident. ) Communication - You need to let employees know its possible. Any complicating things like this muddies the water more than adds value to most employee conversations IMO. I'm trying to get participation & savings rates up, most times adding another layer of decisions brings confusion and decreases engagement. If a client came to me and said we have an NHCE who wants this, I would add it to make the client & employee happy. I would mention in employee meetings but very quickly and move on so I avoid creating a confusing discussion. I would be on the payroll calls initially and I would tell everyone to call me if any other employee wants to do this. The participant election of after-tax on the recordkeeper site would have to be managed well too.

Hi - I usually can keep all the SEP & SIMPLE rules straight but this one is flummoxing me for some reason. Our client started a SEP in 2023 with one year of service as an eligibility rule. Employee was hired October 2024. In May of 2025 they updated the SEP to 3 years of service before eligible for the plan. If they do a SEP contribution for tax year 2025 is the employee required to receive a SEP contribution because they were hired under the 1 year eligibility? or does the employee fall under the 3 year eligibility?

I assume that if the former employee does not elect COBRA, they would not get paid or provided any type of subsidy. If that is the case, then there would be no taxable income. Also, even if the COBRA subsidy is provided, the subsidy may not have to be included in income. Generally, when an employer pays COBRA premiums or subsidies directly to a terminated employee and does not control or verify that they actual use the payment for COBRA, the payment be includable as W2 wages. However, if the employer pays the premium or subsidy directly to the carrier or requires the employee to provide proof for reimbursement premiums or subsidies for COBRA coverage that has actually been elected, the payment generally would not need to be included in W2 wages.

Is there another reason why a plan’s sponsor might prefer not to allow nonhighly-compensated employees to make an employee (after-tax) contribution?

Yes absolutely. You can do anything for just NHCE's pretty much, such as profit sharing of varying rates.