Leaderboard

I would like to make one comment to this statement to confirm my understanding. I agree that the timing is irrelevant. However, I don't believe the Final Regulations change the nature of a catch-up. Meaning a catch-up is still an amount that exceeds a limit, but any Roth deposit may satisfy the requirement. For example, let's say a 401k plan document is written to not match catch-up contributions. In January 2026, a participant (age 55) funds $8,000 Roth and $0 pre-tax February - December the participant funds $24,500 pretax. $0 Roth The Roth dollars satisfy the rule, but they are not catch-up dollars. The final $8,000 pre-tax dollars are still the catch-up dollars and stay as pre-tax. Therefore if a plan uses a pay period match formula, the Roth dollars are matched, the final $8,000 of pre-tax is not. This may be semantics, but I would change the statement to say: The first Roth dollar deposited can be used to satisfy the Roth catch-up requirement.

In 1977, as I began law school, I started working as a law clerk and was quickly given responsibility for the firm’s qualified plan practice. When I passed the bar in 1980, I stepped fully into a career that has now spanned more than four decades. As I begin to slowly wind down those years as an ERISA attorney, I am deeply grateful for the opportunities that have come my way and for the encouragement and help of so many good men and women. I never dreamed, in the ’70s and ’80s, where this practice would take me. As this year began, my ERISA work fell into six main roles: I’m an author. I have written or co-authored five books dealing with retirement plans, and am nearly done with my sixth—the ERISA Fiduciary Navigator eSource—all published by ERISApedia.com. I head the ERISApedia ASK service, where my protégé, Adriana Starr, and I answer questions from ERISA practitioners. I present webcasts and live seminars on retirement topics. I draft plan documents and interim amendments on behalf of the Relius division of FIS. I serve as of counsel to the Ferenczy Benefit Law Center. I assist some clients in a private practice. One of the observations that has struck me over the years about the Employee Retirement Income Security Act is that it never defines “retirement.” My own working definition has been “separating from service once you’re old.” But the older I get, the older “old” gets. Still, as I near RMD age (even after SECURE 2.0), it's time to start thinking about saddling up and riding into the sunset. I envision retirement as gradually dropping things out of the saddlebags. So, with mixed emotions, I announce that I will no longer be acting as of counsel to the Ferenczy Benefit Law Center or conducting a private practice. I will consult on special cases, but otherwise, for now, my professional endeavors will focus on writing, teaching, FIS, and the ASK service. Planning for the financial side of retirement has been the easy part. The emotional and professional side is more challenging. My hope is that a slow and gentle ride toward tomorrow will make that transition easier. I am profoundly grateful to the colleagues, clients, and friends who have shared this journey with me—and I look forward to continuing to write, teach, and cheer you on from slightly lighter saddlebags.

I hope your seventh book will be the music notation and lyrics of your songs about the law of retirement plans.

If the buyer bought shares, LLC interests, or partnership interests of the seller organization such that the buyer now governs the seller organization, the buyer may decide what to do with the seller organization’s retirement plan. If the buyer bought assets from the seller organization (and not shares or other interests of the seller organization), the seller organization, acting by whoever has power to act for it, decides what to with its retirement plan. This is not advice to anyone.

Derrin, I’m so very grateful for everything you’ve done for the retirement community and, especially for me. Without you (and Doug Jolley), I can’t imagine having survived the early difficulties in what became my career. Starting my own business way before it was rational to do so, I leaned rather heavily on PIX just to keep my head above water. Thank you, though that is woefully inadequate.

Well done! I can echo, after 40+ years as an actuary, it was difficult to "let go", so I endorse your gradual approach. Retirement is great!

@S Derrin Watson, you have been a trusted advisor, teacher, lecturer, and author for my entire career in the industry. I can easily say that you, @Ilene Ferenczy, and Sal have shaped me into the practitioner I am today. I wish you the best as you start this new chapter of your life!

In my experience, almost all business lawyers suggest bringing in an employee-benefits lawyer—even when working on a micro deal. Often, a client rejects that advice, does not engage an eb lawyer or consultant, and does not authorize the business lawyer to engage an eb lawyer or consultant. Also, some sellers and some buyers keep the deal-making secret from even one’s regular advisers, including some who might bill nothing for useful help. Bad consequences result, but it might not be the fault of a lawyer or other professional.

Entirely unacceptable, whether or not (as @Peter Gulia correctly points out) the transaction was "whole" or "partial". The most obvious issue: if there are unvested $$, the seller should have either (1) amended prior to the sale to provide 100% vesting for all current participants, or (2) included a similar provision in the buy/sell agreement. This issue has been on the radar screen of benefit professionals and attorneys for decades, so omission is unconscionable. There may be other similar issues, e.g., (a) modifying the participation requirement if current (non-participant) employees might be affected; (b) nature and responsibility of employee communication; (c) identifying responsibility for govt filings; (d) are there any non-qualified benefit plans; etc. If a stock sale (implied but not certain in the original post) and the seller was worried about inheriting liability, then the seller's advisors (legal and/or benefit consultant) were asleep at the wheel. Probably also the buyer's advisors.

If the documents governing the plan provide no more than is needed to meet § 401(a)(9): “The account balance is increased by the amount of any contributions or forfeitures allocated to the account balance as of dates in the valuation calendar year after the valuation date. For this purpose, contributions that are allocated to the account balance as of dates in the valuation calendar year after the valuation date, but that are not actually made during the valuation calendar year, may be excluded.” 26 C.F.R. § 1.401(a)(9)-5(b)(2)(i) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/part-1/section-1.401(a)(9)-5#p-1.401(a)(9)-5(b)(2)(i).

😮noooo!!! Well, for the rest of us. Thanks for everything over the years, Derrin, and enjoy the wind-down!

Darrin you are the one and only person who has ever done singing continuing education classes that I have been in. You bring up your name in this industry and the conversation turns to the signing instructor. You also taught all of us a lot in those classes. Enjoy retirement.

Echoing @Belgarath and wishing you the best on your gradual exit from the industry. Hopefully others will continue your legacy so the next generation of service providers will know "who's the employer?" After 40+ years in the industry myself, I must say that my fondest memories of your contributions to us all were your musical renditions that added spice to otherwise boring and mundane (to most) topics. Enjoy life!

Hi, ho, Silver! We all wish you the very best as you enter this new phase of your life. We have valued having you as a resource, and we are glad that we will still be working together with ERISApedia. Be well, my friend, enjoy your life and family, and know that you are always in our thoughts. We love you - Ilene, Alison, and the rest of us at FBLC

If it's owner only, why not just add it anyway?