Leaderboard

We haven't done (nor will we) any formal quantitative analysis of this question. I CAN say that it is darned few, in general. An administrative PIA all out of proportion to the end results. Somewhat typical of many of the SECURE/2.0 changes...

@Peter Gulia the IRS uses the term "communication" rather than "notice". The timing of the communication is no later than 60 days after the last discretionary match has been deposited for the plan year. I don't see how you can comply with the timing requirement by simply putting it in the SPD. Are you anticipating distributing an SPD each year after the last deposit for the year? There is no model communication, so any communication that satisfies the required elements (timing and content) would suffice. Also, there is no statutory or regulatory requirement for this communication. The notice requirement language was included in Cycle 3 plan documents as part of the compromise discussed above. Failure to provide the communication (if required by the plan document) would be an operational failure.

There appears to be some nuanced interpretation of when the participant notice is required. Backing up a little bit, the IRS was concerned about 2 issues going into Cycle 3 about the match needing to be definitely determinable. The first issue was the total amount of the match to be funded had to be communicated by the employer to the Plan Administrator or Trustee before the contribution was deposited into the trust. This is a simple formality and parallels the documentation required for specifying a discretionary profit sharing contribution. The second issue was whether the match is definitely determinable meaning do participants know who gets the match, what is the frequency the match is made, and how is each participant's match calculated. The elements needed to determine the match include specifying: matching period (e.g., annual, each payroll, quarterly...) allocation formula (e.g., fixed percent, percent by tiers, flat dollar...) eligibility (e.g., varying allocations by business unit) If all of these elements are explicitly defined in the document (some plan say "fixed", "rigid" or similar adjectives implying could only be changed by plan amendment), then there is no need to send a notice to participants. In this instance then the SPD effectively communicates to participants about a definitely determinable match in the same manner in which a discretionary profit sharing contribution is communicated to participants. If any of these elements are not explicitly defined in the document (the plan sponsor can has discretion), then a notice is required to be sent to participants within 60 days after the last match is funded for the plan year. This timing requirement could vary considerably from year to year. One interesting note is the notice is an IRS notice (subject to the IRS rules for electronic delivery), why the SPD generally is a DOL disclosure. Another interesting note is that the notice requirement seems to apply to only to pre-approved documents. Apparently an individually designed plan possibly may not be subject to the notice requirement.

I meant burdened only in the sense of § 414(v)(7) depriving an individual of what otherwise might be her choice between Roth and non-Roth deferrals. (While I might share your view that many participants ought to prefer Roth for all or some of one’s deferrals, there are situations in which choosing non-Roth can be reasoned financial planning.) Anyhow, I wasn’t thinking about any individual’s preference, only whether § 414(v)(7) restrains a participant’s choice for the catch-up portion of a deferral. And “affected” is the language I advised for communications about the soon-to-be-applied tax law.

You are going to need to define burden a bit better. Affects would be a better term since it's hard to see some who is able to afford to defer more than $23K into a retirement account as being burdened that their deferral beyond be designated ROTH and the future earnings on that not subject to income taxation.

A few quick questions: 1) How sure are you these are shares in a 401(k) plan and not a KSOP (A KSOP is an ESOP with a 401(k) component)? It makes a big difference. A KSOP would have the same rules as an ESOP about distributions. 2) It sounds like these shares aren't publicly traded. If that is correct how are they setting the price? 3) If a 401(k) plan and these are just a choice of investments I guess they could allow in-service distributions for people who want to move the shares to a SD IRA. This is so unusual I would want an ERISA attorney look at it also. I really do understand your concerns.

FWIW... I heard on an NPR news report the other night that about 8% of employees in the US make more than $145K/year.

David D, thank you, this is what I'm asking about. Does the IRS require that the (2) information to participants be a separate notice? Or is it enough to put it in the summary plan description?

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 tax-law condition that a higher-wage participant’s age-based catch-up deferrals must be Roth contributions (or not made) begins with 2026.