Leaderboard

From the preamble to the proposed catch-up regulations, released today: This is found in a footnote on page 15 of the 57-page document. https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-00350.pdf

THANK YOU!

They can in our ASC document.

The existing language in the pre-approved documents that I have seen incorporate the catch-up limits by references to code and regulatory which include the age 60-63 increased limit. If no action is taken, then the increase is automatic under these documents. A plan is not required to offer any catch-up contributions, and if it does offer them, it is not required to offer the maximum available catch-up contribution. The only requirement is the catch-up provision be universally available. A plan that does not want to have the age 60-63 limit should adopt an amendment or a formal administrative procedure documenting their position, and then make sure everything is included in the plan document when all the other recent legislation changes are required to be included in the document.

If the plan’s governing documents do not constrain what the plan’s administration might responsibly choose: The notice of proposed rulemaking C.B. Zeller points to includes a transition rule: “For purposes of paragraph (b)(2) of this section [calling for forfeitures to be used no later than 12 months after the close of the plan year in which the forfeitures “were incurred”], forfeitures incurred during any plan year that begins before January 1, 2024, will be treated as having been incurred in the first plan year that begins on or after January 1, 2024.” And: “Taxpayers . . . may rely on these proposed regulations for periods preceding the applicability date.” If the plan TH 401k describes is on calendar plan years, the plan’s administrator might, with its lawyer’s advice, consider using the forfeitures from 2023 and 2024 during 2025. Although the notice of proposed rulemaking states only a proposed rule, not a final or interim rule, a practitioner might suggest her client follow (at least) the proposed rule Why? The Treasury department explains that the proposed rule is based on decades-ago IRS interpretations. Until there is a Treasury rule, an IRS examiner might assume that the IRS’s interpretations are the correct interpretations of the Internal Revenue Code’s tax-qualification conditions. As ratherbereading suggests, a plan’s administrator might read the plan’s governing documents and seek to follow them as nearly as one can.

What a perfect example of govt incompetence.

There is nothing comparable to 409A's change in control provision under 457(f), because the two statutes are structured quite differently. 457(f): Benefit is taxable in all events upon lapse of a substantial risk of forfeiture. 409A: Benefit is taxable upon lapse of a substantial risk of forfeiture only if the requirements of 409A are not met. Among the requirements of 409A is that the benefit be payable on one of several events, one of which is a change in control. So while the definition of substantial risk of forfeiture is similar (though not identical) in 409A and 457(f), the change in control rules in 409A (which have nothing to do with substantial risk of forfeiture) have no application to 457(f).