Leaderboard

If a charitable organization’s § 403(b) plan is not a governmental plan or a church plan, I would not (without getting more facts) suggest the organization attempt to treat a plan that includes a § 414A automatic-contribution arrangement as a non-ERISA plan. That’s because I think a court could decide that an organization “established” a plan by deciding essential terms of an automatic-contribution arrangement, or “maintained” a plan by administering an automatic-contribution arrangement’s provisions. austin3515, many of my notes in BenefitsLink discussions avoid stating a conclusion. That’s for more than a few reasons, including: A warning that what I write here is not advice might be ineffective. Even if I expect that a regular BenefitsLink neighbor would not assert any kind of reliance, I still worry about what other readers might perceive. My malpractice insurer suggests cautions about what a lawyer puts in social media. I want my insurance applications to be truthful. I likely haven’t done complete research. It’s work to check all courts’ decisions. Even if I’m completely confident about a point of law, I don’t want something I’ve written to be quoted against my client, even incorrectly. (I’ve had that sad experience with litigation.) I am counsel to law firms other than mine, and avoid publicly expressing a view that might call into question a firm’s advice to their client. I am a coauthor in multi-author books, and avoid publicly expressing a view that might differ with, or embarrass, a coauthor. Likewise, I avoid anything that might embarrass or otherwise burden a publisher I work with. That includes topics and points on which I’m not the publisher’s author or editor. I try to help smart practitioners who can do their own reasoning. But I don’t want to give a too-easy answer to someone who doesn’t think for oneself. And many questions of employee-benefits law don’t have a settled answer. Law is a prediction of what a court would decide; we often don’t know. None of this is advice to anyone.

Assuming the plan allows, the projected limits for 2026 are what we think they will be, and the Plan has sufficient records to support, that looks correct. Your $39,500 total looks accurate. but your formula lists 402(g) and $24,000 not $24,500. I don't typically deal with 403(b) but I believe there are some ordering rules you have to follow when there are both catch-ups offered so assuming this hasn't come into play in a prior year I would agree but you do have some tracking going forward to make sure you don't mess up the lifetime limit on the second catch-up. At least as I understand it.

LOL...because I wasn't thinking when I wrote that! LOL!

Let me add one more thing, does the plan's 404a-5 notice disclose to the participants that the forfeitures will be used to pay plan expenses?

I upload vesting to voya using the plan year date, not the current date. I can't help you with the error. Are you the TPA? You should have a voya contact for that plan to whom you can email your issue.

I estimate the amount remains $105,000 for 2026. (Organized by Internal Revenue Code section; original amount; rounding increment, and rounding down or nearest; and text of the adjustment provision, with highlighting on the base-period year.) I.R.C. § 45E(f)(2)(C)(iii)(II) [Small employer pension plan startup costs]; $100,000; $5,000, rounded down; “the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, determined by substituting ‘calendar year 2007’ for ‘calendar year 2016’ in subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof.” But in November 2024 the IRS stated: “Pursuant to section 45E(f)(2)(C)(iii), for a taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 2023, this limitation is equal to the initial limitation of $100,000, multiplied by the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, determined by substituting ‘calendar year 2007’ for ‘calendar year 2016’ in section 1(f)(3)(A)(ii). Because the specification of a 2007 base period to be used for computing an adjustment that is first made for 2024 appears to be an error that has been identified as the subject of future legislative correction, the IRS will calculate and apply the limitation in section 45E(f)(2)(C) by substituting ‘calendar year 2022’ for ‘calendar year 2007’ in section 45E(f)(2)(C)(iii). Using that substitution, the limitation for 2024 was [and for 2025 is] $105,000. IRS Notice 2024-80, 2024–47 I.R.B. 1120 (Nov. 18, 2024), https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb24-47.pdf (emphasis added). from “How to inflation-adjust amounts not designed in Tom Poje’s spreadsheet” https://benefitslink.com/boards/topic/80456-how-to-inflation-adjust-amounts-not-designed-in-tom-poje%E2%80%99s-spreadsheet/#comment-354056.

If you can explain this from Code section 45E, sure: (iii)Inflation adjustmentIn the case of any taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 2023, the $100,000 amount under clause (i) shall be increased by an amount equal to— (I) such dollar amount, multiplied by (II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, determined by substituting “calendar year 2007” for “calendar year 2016” in subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof.  If any amount as adjusted under this clause is not a multiple of $5,000, such amount shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $5,000.

Whatever ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code might permit a plan to provide, there might be three layers of documents to read. Do the plan’s governing documents provide for using forfeitures to pay or reimburse plan expenses? (Just yesterday, I reviewed a set of plan documents, made using a big recordkeeper’s IRS-preapproved documents, that read strictly preclude using forfeitures on plan expenses.) Does the service agreement obligate the recordkeeper to process the plan trustee’s reimbursement of a plan expense the employer paid? Does the service agreement set restrictions or conditions on processing amounts from forfeitures? (Recognizing that many plan sponsor-administrators get little or no legal advice, a service provider might narrow its obligations or set conditions to manage risks that the service provider is criticized for “allowing” a plan’s administrator to do something it ought not to have done.) Does the trust agreement or custodial-account agreement provide for the trustee or custodian to reimburse a plan expense the employer paid? If a reimbursement is provided or not precluded, what conditions does the agreement set for showing the trustee or custodian that the reimbursement is proper? This is not advice to anyone.

Unless the plan document does not allow or such request for reimbursement is not timely (asking in 2025 to be repaid for expense paid in 2024), I see no problem. Could be the RK just doesn't want the assets leaving the plan.

I am going to guess regarding the $145,000 HPI limit. This was stated to be adjusted the same way as the others, but using 7/1/2023 - 9/30/2023 as the base period for years beginning after 12/31/2024 with increases occurring in $5,000 increments. Thus, $145,000 was the limit for 2024 when the law required mandatory Roth Catchups to begin (and in an unusual move by the IRS, we were allowed to ignore the law in 2024 and 2025), and the COLA for the 2025 HPI limit would have been increased this as follows: $145,000 x (314.540 + 314.796 + 315.301) / (305.691 + 307.026 + 307.789) = $148,799, which is not $5,000 more, so no increase for 2025, stayed at $145,000 But, for 2026: $145,000 x (323.048 + 323.976+ 324.800) / (305.691 + 307.026 + 307.789) = $153,077, which is at least $5,000, so the 2026 HPI comp number should be $150,000 It's unclear to me based on the law/regs, but my guess is that means in 2027 we look at comp over $150,000 paid in 2026 for determining HPI's in 2027.

This is to share with you the happy news that today is the 25th anniversary of the first day on which the BenefitsLink Newsletter began daily publication. I didn't see this coming when I decided to go daily in 1999, at age 41. (The newletters had begun four years earlier, but they weren't being published every day.) The free information must be helping employee benefits practitioners to help their clients, which translates to the ability of employers to effectively run and fund programs that improve the lives of so many millions of working people (and retirees, and beneficiaries), even if most of them wouldn't know (or want to know) the difference between an ERISA and an eraser. What a noble endeavor, to be an employee benefits practitioner! Some lawyers and TPAs and other benefits practitioners have found work through our job board that's been running since 1996, which means they've gone to new workplaces and sometimes new cities, which means some of them have met people they wouldn't have met otherwise, which means some of them have fallen in love and then had children... which means there are people walking around on the planet now who wouldn't be here but for this "web site" thingie that started in 1995, and then the idea of sending "newsletters" by "email." None of that would have been possible without readers. The existence of "BenefitsLink babies" didn't occur to me until one day about 10 years ago, but I kept it quiet -- at that time, they were still teenagers! True to form, I and my business partner and wife Lois Baker (formerly an employee benefits lawyer, whom I met on CompuServe in 1990 while trading ERISA questions using dial-up modems) have failed to do any marketing of this happy day. But as I sat here at the keyboard today I had the idea that we would get so much joy by celebrating the occasion with readers. I hope this hasn't come across as a commercial but instead is the lifting of an E-flute of cyber-champagne -- here's to employee benefits practitioners everywhere! It's a wonderful community, and for 25 years now and still counting, we are so happy to be a part of it.