All Activity

That is my understanding.

As one TPA to another, it is another designation, and one that is obviously rare since there are so few, and sets us apart from other TPAs. (IMHO) As well, for non-attorneys and non CPAs, we can represent clients in front of IRS and audits, this giving us the advantage of levying a higher fee. After all, you get what you pay for, right???

I listened to a webinar today presented by a well-known industry expert. He made a comment about SECURE 2.0 Section 603 that surprised me. He made the comment that to simplify the administration of Roth catch-ups, a plan sponsor could amend the plan to only allow catch-ups in the form of Roth for everyone. I thought I must have misunderstood him because to me the proposed regs and final regs seem very clear that this is not allowed. However, when questioned, he commented that he believes the IRS will allow this and the third party document providers are preparing for this. Does he know something that no one else knows? Has anyone else heard rumors of the IRS taking this stance? Thanks

Hi Sami, Austin's response pasted from ERISApedia may prove helpful for your reference: My (unresearched) gut thought would be that the distributing Plan would determine the share attributable to earnings/basis of any In-Service distribution of Roth funds in the same manner it normally would (I imagine possibly by multiplying the ratio of earnings/basis against the amount of the Roth account being distributed), not by calculating in the manner that you normally would for a 402(g) refund (considering the earnings only since the contribution date). However, this would seem to provide an advantage to the Participant by allowing the gains on this 402(g) excess to have accumulated tax-advantaged. I wouldn't think the IRS would intend an individual gaining an advantage by circumventing the regs., but that is how I read the ERISApedia citation (specifically "Second, for tax purposes, undistributed excess deferrals are treated as if they were proper elective deferrals when contributed").

for The Benefit Advantage (Remote / Auburn Hills MI)View the full text of this job opportunity

Hi all, On reviewing a Plan Sponsor's payroll records/W-2s, I've identified that the owner's W-2 reflects total deferrals of $24.5k for 2025 (not catch-up eligible). Normally a 402(g) Excess distributions would be relatively straightforward, but in this case, the 'excess deferrals' weren't actually deposited in the Plan trust (to the tune of $5k, $19.5k actually deposited), which is why our system didn't flag the 402(g) Excess (as it would have on receipt). Let's say this was due to a missed off-cycle processed by the Plan Sponsor just for the owner to contribute these amounts. Another complicating factor, is their payroll report indicates that they added back a positive after-tax deduction of $1k, labeled appearing to be in order to correct this, so the funds appear to have not actually been withheld from his paycheck, but the W-2 does reflect them as withheld. In order to correct this, is the only acceptable method to fund the late deposit of the $5k EE deferrals then distribute them with accompanying 1099-R from the Plan Trust? Is there any other permissible solutions that don't include funding the excess amount, such as correcting the W-2 or issuing a 1099-R (no accompanying payment) reporting the $1k excess as taxable for a pre-4/15 402(g) correction? If the funds weren't actually withheld and the $1k excess was, in fact, paid to the individual, does any correction (other than possibly the W-2) need to take place at all?

Without looking I know about 10 in my area, so we actually CAN have a party! 😆

FYI, the Directory of Federal Tax Return Preparers with Credentials and Select Qualifications lists 363 ERPAs. The list shows name and address, and can be searched by name or proximity to zip code. You can have a party and invite all your ERPA neighbors 🤣.

for American Trust Retirement (Remote)View the full text of this job opportunity

I think I know the answer but I wanted to check the following: Existing 401k plan for a sole-prop. The election for deferral amount had to be made by 12/31/2025 for 2025 as it cannot be done by 4/15/2026? After year end only applies for new plans. Am I correct?

I know of several people who are dropping (or have dropped) their ERPA designation - in their opinion, it simply isn't worth the hassle.

I doubt it. Its more likely that the process is just chaotic and full of issues. It has been since day one.

I renewed in July, 2025 for the 22,23 and 24 years. I showed the proper number of credits. First IRS said they never received my renewal and was placed on inactive. I know they received as they cashed my check I was told I'm 16 credits shy as well as 6 Ethics, which I am not. I wrote a "reasonable cause" as I had an 6 month recovery from two torn retinas, and asked for either a waiver or extension to obtain the necessary credits - just in case they are correct. How would I show the I completed and received the "additional" credits A new Form and go back to 2022 and list all credits, as well as pay another $140, or write in and tell them I have completed and show my backup? In the meantime I was told by an auditor that I can use Form 8821, but obviously can not represent myself as an ERPA until this is straightened out, which, pgiven the furlough could take another 90 days. Are they doing this to others in the hope that they can reduce the number of ERPAs (which is already ridiculously low)?

Just thoughts. Generally speaking, group health plans are not federally required to cover weight loss meds. Most of the plans I deal with would not cover them if simply for weight loss but might cover them if for some other medical issue, e.g., to control Type 2 diabetes or high blood pressure. Most of those plans would require preapproval. Employers, especially those with self-insured plans, have discretion to dermine their drug formulary. Since self-insured (and possibly one day with fully insured) offering the meds to one group versus another would be permitted if not discriminatory under §105(h). If different between plans, do the separate plans satisfy 410(b) coverage testing? If different for different groups within a plan, is the approach structured to meet 105(h)? how does the employer classify the employee groups? etc....

Thank you for clarifying.

for FuturePlan, by Ascensus (Remote / PA)View the full text of this job opportunity

for Ascensus (Remote)View the full text of this job opportunity

I've been presented with this situation: Two spouses own two S-corps - MS owned by J 51% and her husband O 49% OC owned 100% by O It's a controlled group because O owns part of MS. Each business has only one other employee, an NHCE. OC has a 401k plan (I don't have any other details yet). Of course, J wants a 401k plan to cover MS... and only MS. I want to say that as long as the populations are stable, then this is OK. No matter what feature I put into the MS plan, I'll either have: 1 HCE benefitting, 1 HCE nonbenefitting, 1 NHCE benefitting, and 1 NHCE nonbenefitting = 1/2 / 1/2= 100% or 2 HCE benefitting, 2 NHCE benefitting = 2/2 / 2/2= 100% This seems... simplistic? Like I'm missing something? What trap am I unwittingly walking into (other than the one where one of the NHCEs leaves and the testing fails and it's a disaster). Thanks!

If participant died in 2020 and estate is beneficiary (subject to 5-year rule), CARES act said 2020 is ignored for purposes of 5-year rule. Is distribution due in 2026, or was it due in 2025? Recordkeeper is arguing that we create a fiction that participant died in 2021, such that distribution is due in 2026. I don't think that's what CARES Act said but it would be a good result if everyone here thinks recordkeeper is right!

From the instructions, the years would be 2022, 2023 and 2024 since the enrollment expires 9/2025. Calendar years are used.

for BPAS (Utica NY)View the full text of this job opportunity

Yes

Good morning. Husband is due an RMD in 2026 because he had reached RMD age. Since he died before receiving his RMD for 2026, it is required to be distributed to his beneficiary (his wife as the sole spouse beneficiary) on or before December 31, 2026. Wife does not have the option to waive Husband's 2026 RMD. Wife will be required to begin receiving RMDs based on her DOB in 2027 (wife will need to elect ULT treatment if plan has not been amended to use the ULT as the default under the plan). I recommend checking language in the plan document.

This is a profit sharing plan with spouse owners only. Both are subject to the RMD. Husband died January 2026. Wife is the primary beneficiary. The Plan requires the RMD in year of death be based on the deceased date of birth and the beneficiary's DOB in the following years. Does the wife have the option of waiving the 2026 RMD without penalty? If she is eligible to waive, will she be subject to both 2026 and 2027 in 2027? Due to the non-liquid nature of plan investments, I do not believe she will be able to roll the husbands benefit to an IRA at this time. Thank for your help.

for Cetera Retirement Plan Specialists (Coppell TX / West Des Moines IA / Hybrid)View the full text of this job opportunity