Leaderboard

As @RatherBeGolfing noted, this topic came up in a few of the presentations at ASPPA National. The consensus response was to apply the plan's eligibility rules and if an employee or LTPTE is eligible to make deferrals on 1/1/2025, then they should be subject to auto-enrollment. The topic of whether all eligible employees should be auto-enrolled or only newly eligible employees could be auto-enrolled often was paired the LTPTE question. The consensus response was, absent explicit guidance, to at least follow the plan rules (or permissible plan rules) where the plan would honor existing affirmative elections that differ from the auto-enrollment minimum, but applying auto-enrollment all eligible employees on 1/1/2025 was an administrative fail-safe approach. It was acknowledged that we are a little more than a month away from the deadline to send to participants annual notices for the 2025 plan year, and this could be an administrative challenge for some plans.

Absent specific guidance that says "LTPTEs are not subject to auto enrollment", I don't see an argument for why it wouldn't apply. I'll also throw in that at least two sessions at ASPPA Annual made this point I believe one was Kelsey Mayo in a general session but don't quote me on it.

Because I like this answer, I'm going to assume it is 100% correct.

I received an email like that and, similarly, it didn't work for me. There is no number, name, department or email to contact. I reached out to the IRS agent that I am currently working with on a client audit. He told me the e-mails went out to everyone but each agent will send their communication through this portal as needed. So, if you are not expecting anything now (and he told me he didn't send me anything), he told me just wait for the next time an agent sends something, and then I will be given the chance to access it again. This only sounds somewhat accurate but I don't have the energy to pursue this any further. The next time I need it, I will see what happens.

For what the Labor department describes as a safe-harbor rule regarding “a plan with fewer than 100 participants at the beginning of the plan year”, it’s “the 7th business day following [a measured-from date].” 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-102(a)(2)(i) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/part-2510/section-2510.3-102#p-2510.3-102(a)(2)(i). For those who use an invented presumption of one, two, or three days, one imagines it might make sense to count it in workdays, business days, or banking days. This is not advice to anyone.

I agree with all the prior comments and wholeheartedly agree with just - the requirement is to segregate from employer assets (i.e., deposit into a plan account) but amounts need not be invested/allocated within that time frame. Leaving them univested for a prolonged time may have other fiduciary concerns, but not late deposits.

Many of the audits I work with start with 3 business days, or look at things like how quickly can payroll taxes be remitted as a guidline. As for not having a new recordkeeper - if there is a old recordkeeper - the old one continues to take deposits until the new one is set -up. That is standard and part of the coordination and timeline management that either someone at the company, the TPA, the recordkeeper etc should have managed. If that is not possible - there is typically no reason why an outside account in the name of the plan -even just a checking account or basic brokerage account - can't be used. The deposits have to be segregated from employer assets. They go into the plan account - and then when the recordkeeper has the individual accounts ready - the plan account sends the money to the recordkeeper. Happens for brand new plans occasionally too. I encourage plans to avoid it with good planning, but sometimes the unexpected to unavoidable happens and its necessary. If the deferrals go into the plan account timely, even if they aren't at the main recordkeeper, they are timely. There may be other issues, but late deposits won't be one of them.

The auditors we work with look at every period on a spreadsheet to determine the number of days it took for each withholding to be deposited. If they determine the company can reasonably make the deposit within say 3 days, then that is the standard for that company. No, nor should they.

"Can all "civil" lawsuits involving a benefit covered by ERISA be removed to Federal Court?" No. Unless the issues relate directly to benefits under an ERISA governed plan, the jurisdiction questions become very difficult and fact specific. Removal occupies a significant space in a law school civil procedure class. I doubt that this forum is well suited for you to progress toward the particular answers you seek. If the parties are engaged in civil litigation already, that is a question for the lawyer of the party who is interested in removal.

Alot of ESOPs don't have the cash to offer non-leveraged lumpsum distribution every year. It may take a number of years to accumulate enough cash to do so so the fact they did it likely has nothing to do with an ulterior motive, but more to do with addressing the "have nots".