Leaderboard

Ferenczy Benefits Law posted a flashpoint yesterday highlighting that the Roth catch-up mandate is still effective in 2026. Link to article Shoutout to @Ilene Ferenczy *Edit to add that Spark also released a summary stating that good faith compliance is required for 2026.

The Discretionary Match notice requirement was part of the Cycle 3 Pre-Approved language. IRS originally wanted to eliminate the discretionary match altogether as they felt it did not satisfy the definitely determinable requirement under Treasury Regulation §1.401-1(b)(1)(ii). They compromised and allowed it with two parts 1) The Plan Sponsor communicate in writing to the Plan Administrator/Trustee, and 2) The Plan Sponsor/Plan Administrator communicate the match to the participants so that the match is definitely determinable to participants. I believe that language is in all Cycle 3 documents.

Here is a thread TL;DR

Leaving aside the IRS for a moment ... another consideration might be what the Ninth Circuit recently opined about SPD provisions: "Assuming that Platt only received the 2022 email containing the new SPD, this email did not provide sufficient notice of the arbitration provision because the provision was buried on page 153 of the 170-page SPD. It is unreasonable to expect that Platt would notice a new arbitration provision hidden in a lengthy document." [Platt v. Sodexo, S.A., No. 23-55737 (9th Cir. Aug. 4, 2025)]

Are the hours going to be counted forever? What if it takes someone three years to reach 1,000 hours, do they want the person let for the safe harbor and profit sharing at that point?

The only exception to the exclusive plan rule for a SIMPLE is a safe harbor 401(k) plan. The rule required the SIMPLE to end and the safe harbor 401(k) deferrals to begin the next day and the deferral limits are then pro-rated for the year. I agree that the safe harbor 401(k) plan must have at least 3 months of deferrals in the year to allow the plan to be safe harbor, so you may likely be out of time for 2025.

The rules under 408(p) rules say a SIMPLE must be the exclusive plan for the Employer and Employer is defined as all businesses in the controlled group/affiliated service group.

A SIMPLE IRA has to be the only plan sponsored by the employer. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-faqs-regarding-simple-ira-plans

"The final regulations do not extend or modify the administrative transition period provided under Notice 2023-62."

Bruce1 not sure what the motives are here. 1) Is it the names? So for example if one company is a landscaping business and the other is a real estate agency perhaps the employer names would be confusing. I'm sure others would think I'm way off base but if you kept all elections perfectly identical (including the same provider) and had two "plans", the term "no harm no foul" does come to mind... The IRS rule is obviously to make sure both companies are treated the same. What would the IRS correction be if two identical plans were used, one for each entity? Everyone was eligible for the same SIMPLE. To all of those who say "What is the big deal it's just a name" I would only say they may very well have a reason where if you heard it you might say "oh that's a good reason, I get that." 2) Is it banking? I would assume the financial institutions can handle this.