Leaderboard

ADP refunds are not particpant-driven transactions. The decision is made by the plan administrator. The custodian should rely on the representations of the plan administrator and/or trustee in cases like these. Most of the record keepers I dealt with took direction from me (acting as 3(16) Plan Administrator). But I don't see why they can't/won't take direction from the Plan Administrator. Are these brokerage accounts?

I think it is an unnecessary burden on the client/employer. The code should be set up on the payroll side. After all, the recordkeeper can only identify a mistake AFTER it happens. In my opinion, the payroll system should be programmed to handle this so an error does NOT occur. Yes, the RK can be a second line of defense (if the employer provides HPI data), but employers shouldn't need to do that if they don't want to.

I am curious about why the industry doesn't view this as purely a payroll function. While an RK needs DOBs for various reasons and can use them to determine whether a participant's catch-up needs to be returned because they are not the proper age, there is no other reason to collect SS wages except for this new rule. Why can't this responsibility be put on payroll companies to ensure they do it properly? They have all the records.

Congrats @Belgarath!!! You are coming back to discuss SECURE 3.0 with us just for fun though, right? Right? Bueller???

If the employee will have about $195,000 in Social Security wages (box 3) on one 2025 Form W-2 wage report, that would make her a § 414(v)(7)-affected participant for 2026 (if she otherwise is eligible for an age-based catch-up). That a portion of the wages was from union labor does not by itself exclude that portion from § 414(v)(7)’s measure of Social Security wages. This is not advice to anyone.

The number of "solo 401k plans" that are referred to me that are missing restatements is disheartening. When I explain the issue and cost to correct it, almost every single one has elected to go back under their rock and hide (hopefully at least getting a current restatement, for their own sake). I have to presume that these solo 401k vendors are doing the bare minimum and sending the sponsor some kind of correspondence about a restatement... but no follow-up because their service agreement puts all the responsibility onto the sponsor. "But I saved a couple hundred bucks on administration!" Good trade-off. *eyeroll* Yes, this is a pet peeve of mine.