Leaderboard

I have made the (not all all difficult) decision to retire at the end of this year. I have agreed to work a couple of days a week during the early part of next year to help out my employer while they hire a replacement, but it's a limited engagement. I'll be lurking on these boards for a while yet. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Dave and Lois for providing this magnificent resource - it has been a tremendous asset! I'd also like to thank all of you folks, past and present, for the invaluable assistance you have given to me over the years. I've certainly taken more than I've given, and your time, generosity, and expertise is appreciated more than you can ever know. It's not just the technical expertise, but the sounding board for discussions, sometimes griping (misery loves company) and humor in the face of statutory and regulatory foolishness that makes this such a great community. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors (I'm trying hard not to gloat) as you continue in this business, and I hope you all have a great Holiday season! Take care, and again, a heartfelt thanks!!!

Dude, congratulations!!! You have taken the time and thought to make more than 6,700 posts to these message boards, over more than 24 years. What a helpful and loving contribution you have made to your peers, the employee benefits industry, and hence to plan participants and plan sponsors all over the country! Unfortunately, your request for retirement is denied. (The fine print is in the Terms of Service, the plan documents, or somewhere.)

Exactly, this is either an owner-only play or may work in a very large plan that otherwise easily passes ACP testing, but is essentially a nonstarter in small plans that cover NHCEs.

Am I understanding this correctly? Yes. Is there any way to bypass the testing for mega roth backdoor after tax contributions? Have zero eligible nonhighly compensated employees, no testing needed. In other words, employing only highly compensated employees who meet the age/service/entry requirements = no testing needed.

Sounds like you should do the AE adjustment from March to December on the benefit, and then calculate the lump sum as of December based on the adjusted benefit.

And the plan must have the safe harbor provisions. It is not considered safe harbor if the plan does not say it is safe harbor.

I will also add that allowing after-tax and Roth could be making it easy for employees to do something stupid, like contribute after-tax contributions without first maxing out their Roth 401(k). That's probably the most obvious issue with adding after-tax contributions in general.

A plan which consists solely of deferrals and safe harbor contributions is deemed not top-heavy. As soon as a dollar of profit sharing goes in to the plan - regardless of whether it goes to a key or non-key employee - the exemption is lost. Now the plan must provide the top heavy minimum. First check the highest allocation rate to any key employee, including deferrals. If that's greater than 3%, then the top heavy minimum is 3%. Then look at each of the non-key employees, and see how much they received in safe harbor matching contributions. If they deferred at least 3% (or 5% if a QACA), then their safe harbor match would be at least 3% and they would not need any additional employer contribution. Then you have to give a profit sharing allocation to each of the other non-key employees who were employed on the last day of the year. If they received any match at all, then the profit sharing just has to be enough to get them to 3% match + profit sharing. If there are any non-key HCEs that received profit sharing, then you have to test the profit sharing allocation for coverage and non-discrimination. All of this is assuming that it agrees with your plan document. This is what the plan documents that I use say, but you have to read yours to make sure it's the same. For example, yours might give the top heavy minimum to all employees as opposed to just non-keys, or it might not have the last day requirement, or something else entirely.

fmsinc - Hugh? OP said NRD was 62 w/ NRD 3/1/25. Since he didn't receive his benefit as of 3/1/25, it must be actuarially adjusted to reflect the delayed payment. (This assumes he was not working in suspendable service after 3/1/25 and timely received a Suspension of Benefits Notice.) If he was terminated as of 3/1/25, or if he was active but didn't receive an SOBN, an actuarial increase is required. First you need to adjust the accrued benefit to reflect the delayed payments, then apply the lump sum factor at the age of distribution. This has nothing to do with a DC plan, no idea what you are referring to with those comments.

Thanks again to responders! We decided to provide the former participant with a letter stating that as a former participant with no benefits in the plan now, she is not entitled to receive an SPD at this time. We provided a copy of the last statement she received which reflected the amount she was paid along with the check number and date of her benefit check which was rolled over to an IRA. We stated that we do not maintain historical copies of SPDs. We think she met with SSA in-person as she was never reported on Form SSA which would explain why her request was stated the way it was. We do have copies of historical plan documents but did not provide that to her.

No. A match of 100% on the first 6% satisfies the ADP and ACP safe harbor (assuming no allocation conditions, vesting rules, notice requirements, etc. are satisfied). The 4% rule you reference comes into play when a discretionary match is funded in addition to a safe harbor formula. If there is a discretionary match in addition to a safe harbor match, then to satisfy ACP safe harbor, the match cannot take into account more than 6% of pay and the match contribution cannot exceed 4% of pay.

You can parse otherwise excludable employees but must test that group separately and you don't get a free pass because that group has HCEs. You may want to try restructuring and parse the young HCEs with older NHCEs and test that group on contributions. The question then is whether your restructured plans can pass using ratio percentage or if you can pass average benefits with those young HCEs (might need to calculate AB% on contributions as well).

Editing my initial answer since I misread the question . You are asking if you can amend the plan by 12/31/2025 for a 2026 change from SHM to SHNE? Technically, you can make the change at any point before the plan year starts. A question that could be asked is whether participants will have a reasonable time to make changes to their elections after you amend, and if they are negatively impacted by the change if they do not have reasonable time to change their elections. I think you are fine since you are providing the SHNEC in place of the SHM and participants will not miss out on any of the employer contributions even if they do not have enough time to change their elections for the first payroll. It would be different if you went from 3% SHNEC to 4% match and a participant did not have time to change their election to receive the full 4% match.

The ASPPA courses: Retirement Plan Fundamentals and Introduction to Retirement Plans are excellent. ERISApedia is also excellent, there are a lot of recorded webcasts on many different topics.

We work primarily with larger plans that are unlikely to be designed as safe harbor--but that in general, don't need safe harbor protection, because a generous match encourages participation and the ACP test is passed easily. We typically see approximately 10% of a large plan population using the mega backdoor Roth feature--perhaps a couple of hundred individuals in a 2,000 participant plan (typical for our clients). That's enough to slightly degrade the ACP test results (because most using mega backdoor Roth are HCEs) but not enough to cause the ACP to fail. The bigger issue that we see occasionally is 415 limit violations, if someone miscalculates benefits or compensation and the aggregate limit for deferrals, match and after tax exceeds the DC 415 limit. We see a handful of 415 limit violations annually on our larger plans with this feature--I'd approximate the number as about 5 per 10,000 eligible, or 1,000 using the feature. So 415 limit violations are not common, but they do happen.

Not sure I follow your comment about top heavy. Are you saying that none of the XYZ employees have EVER worked 1000 hours in a year, meaning they are all otherwise excludable and therefore don't have to receive a top heavy minimum contribution under SECURE 2.0 rules? If so, then I agree. However if any of them ever do work 1000 hours then they will have to receive a top heavy minimum because the DC plan does not consist SOLELY of deferrals+safe harbor, and therefore doesn't qualify for the top heavy exemption. If this is a concern that there might be XYZ people who work 1000 hours in the future, I'd recommend separating the 401(k)+safe harbor and the profit sharing into separate plans so that you can maintain the top heavy exemption. Anyhow, use $500k for your deduction limit calc. None of the XYZ employees are benefiting in the plan so you can't count their comp.

They'll be allocated those zero dollars and LIKE it. (Zero value versus "null" value, if you've ever had a Crystal report come out crappy.)

The gateway may not be tested using component plans. See 1.401(a)(4)-9(c)(3)(ii)

Yes. both sub-plans still need to satisfy the overall gateway.

I would add one thing to C.B. Zeller's comment. To be deemed not top-heavy, the plan must consist solely of deferrals and safe harbor contribution AND the eligibility requirements for both deferrals and the safe harbor contribution must be the same.

I assume this is a DC plan? If so then 1.401(a)(9)-5 applies. So the default rule is that you use the entire balance, vested or not. However if the RMD exceeds the vested balance, then you only distribute the vested amount. If we're talking about someone who terminated during 2025, then also be sure to check the plan document's rules about when forfeitures occur. If they are deemed to have a forfeiture immediately upon termination (say because their vested account balance is less than $7,000) then their account balance as of 12/31/2025 (for the 2026 DCY) would only be the vested amount. For 12/31/2024 (used for the 2025 DCY, due by 4/1/2026) there couldn't have been a forfeiture by then so I think there's no question that the full account balance is used.

If the kids are not deferring the maximum - perhaps their tax advisor could educate them on IRAs. If they are eligible to make IRA contributions, might be better than messing up the 401(k) testing with deferrals. They could still be eligible for the plan, and help testing, but a way for them to still get tax savings, but not skew testing.

Did any key employees do salary deferrals? That will trigger top heavy minimums.

Sure, explore that process. But get review by the plan's ERISA attorney. Also, consider whether you need review by your own attorney also.

1. Review the document to determine if it helps with your question. 2. Hire a pension actuary to assist you, especially one that has done several plan terminations. That actuary has probably seen similar situations and might recommend some solutions. One solution might include "creative" communication to encourage the participant and/or spouse to sign. For example, many years ago, I had an unresponsive participant with a LS of around $4000 (the LS limit at the time was $3500). We advised the participant that, if there was no response by X date, the plan would be required to purchase an immediate J&S annuity (because we already knew that no insurer was willing to sell a deferred J&S), and the approximate benefit would be about $20 per month. BTW, it worked and the participant completed the form for LS payout.

If you're going to offer a match to 457(b) contributions, you want the match to go into a 401(a) plan. That could be the existing one, but with a separate benefit structure for the part-time employees, or a new one. The problem here is that the 402(g) limit ($23,500 in 2025, disregarding catch-ups) for 401(k) and 403(b) plans applies only to the employee's own contributions. However, the comparable limit for 457(b) plans applies to the aggregate of employee and employer contributions. So for example, if the employer is doing a 100% match and putting it all into the 457(b) plan, the employee could contribute a maximum of $11,750. That would give rise to an employer match of $11,750, and the employer and employee contributions together would equal the $23,500 limit. However, if the employer match goes to a 401(a) plan, the employee could contribute up to $23,500 to the 457(b) plan, because the contributions to the 401(a) plan would not count against the limit.

Not entirely. I have seen that ... see below from DOL website... this is just part of the notice. Based on her response, she could simply be looking for "lost" retirement benefits.

The owners might not have very high compensation. If person's earned income for plan purposes is $85,000 it will be hard to get a maximum contribution with just deferrals and employer. If the owners have personal taxable investment accounts with large balances, its a way to basically transfer $70,000 from that account into a Roth account each year. And then instead of sitting in a personal taxable investment account, the money sits in the plan as roth and grows tax free. I'm not a big fan personally, but that's what I hear from some that use it for that purpose.

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???

Congratulations on the retirement. Enjoy the next stage of your life!

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.

Sadly, telling a potential plan sponsor about how the safe harbor works during a sales meeting has no bearing on what they remember over a year later when you provide the contribution amounts.

I guess in a narrow view, nobody HAD to explain it to the ER. It's up to them to understand the plan document they are signing, and they are the ones (usually) tasked with operating the plan. However, I'm guessing someone approached the ER about setting up the plan and steering them to a SH arrangement. Whoever did that should have at least explained it to the ER the mandatory contribs and the conditions under which they would be made. It's certainly possible that the ER just tuned out and/or only heard the PS part of the funding. Or maybe thought the SH and PS were the same... I guess they can remove the SH for '26 and just do ADP testing. And tehy doen' even have to give refunds! They can do a QNEC. And guess what? Those don't even have to go to those employed on the last day of the year either!

Did no one explain this to the client during plan setup?

Last time, years ago, when I explained my aversion to naming the “employer” as plan administrator, I got pushback with the perfectly reasonable explanation that with respect to “small” employers my concerns were not well founded and my recommendations were impractical. A fair point. For sole proprietors, and some other businesses with a limited number of active owners, naming the employer as plan administrator is probably not worth much worry. I hope that those active owners understand that they are fiduciaries, and what that means, including potential personal liability. With respect to more complex businesses, the concerns are based on a corporate and agency law. To avoid need for a legal treatise, the practical question to address when the employer is the plan administrator is, “Who is the fiduciary?” Or, asked another way, “Who will be the warm body sitting behind the defendant’s table in a fiduciary lawsuit?” That person has an interest in 1) knowing that they are a fiduciary because without that knowledge, it is impossible to act in accordance with fiduciary standards (attention is the first requirement of a prudent person), and 2) being covered by appropriate insurance (e.g. E&O, D&O, special ERISA policies). To illustrate, if I were a plaintiff’s lawyer or the Department of Labor pursuing a claim of fiduciary breach, and a corporation were the “employer” named as plan administrator (without further specific identification or express delegation), I would name every individual board member and executive officer personally as defendants. And let us not forget the poor HR administrator, who is always on the front line of dealing with benefits and may be a fiduciary by default because they are forced by practicalities to engage in fiduciary activity without the pleasure of being named as a fiduciary. Maybe most of those people could get themselves dismissed, but it would not be fun or happy. This is how the “small employer” exception makes sense. A single owner who also handles all executive functions is on the hook as “employer” no matter what because there is no one else to bother. That is the crux of it. How best to identify the plan administrator, and to align fiduciary responsibility, depends on the organization, its personnel, and its circumstances. There is not an arrangement that fits all, and the appropriate arrangement is often not given any thought when a plan is adopted or restated. I suspect you were asking for some specific models. I am playing the lawyers card of “it depends”.* The organization could name the “employer” as plan administrator, but then a lot of other actions and documentation would be required to achieve the proper identification and alignment. For the most part, that ain’t gonna happen. Even if it does, the Department of Labor can be so ham-fisted that it won’t understand or respect the niceties, and it likes as many people as possible to sweat personal liability. *For a corporation, how about designating the CEO as plan administrator, with authority to delegate, including the authority to designate other named fiduciaries. Depending on circumstances, the CEO will delegate authority rather than directly undertake the functions. The CEO’s corporate responsibility for oversight of company business, and fiduciary responsibility for oversight of persons the CEO names as fiduciary, overlap nicely. For a large organization, corporate or partnership (e.g. professional services), I like fiduciary committees, which can be designated as plan administrator, and populated by a CEO or equivalent. The CEO is still a fiduciary for this purpose.

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.

Agree with Peter. But I know from experience that TIAA will not "treat that estate’s ultimate taker as if she were the plan’s beneficiary or at least a distributee". Also, this sounds like a non-ERISA 403(b), since the spouse is not the default beneficiary. If they are saying the estate is 50% beneficiary, they should be able to explain how and why they cam to that conclusion. Assuming they are right- she might be able to rollover any distribution (made to the estate), to her own IRA ( many PLRs have allowed such rollovers). In this case, it would be her treating herself as the distributee- but she must consult with her CPA or attorney with expertise in such rollovers before completing any such rollover. No- there is no such thing as a see-through estate. PS; the See-through trust would affect only the calculation and the option for rollover. Generally, rollovers are not permitted for estates, but the IRS have made exceptions in cases like the one you describe.

Give me a call. I know a guy who can help someone or something 'disappear' 😉

Maybe top-paid group would help?

No issues there, it's not like they have to follow the rules for safe harbor plans' lengths. Just make it a full plan year with deferrals effective 12/23 or whatever. But as John referenced, no document means no plan means no deferring out of order.

Im on the advisor side. The downsides I see aren't testing related they are process & communication related. Process - this likely wont happen very often, is the payroll team strong enough for the employer to make sure its handled correctly every time it does happen (they will have to be re-explained the rules every time it happens and I wouldn't be surprised if a payroll person told an employee it wasn't possible on accident. ) Communication - You need to let employees know its possible. Any complicating things like this muddies the water more than adds value to most employee conversations IMO. I'm trying to get participation & savings rates up, most times adding another layer of decisions brings confusion and decreases engagement. If a client came to me and said we have an NHCE who wants this, I would add it to make the client & employee happy. I would mention in employee meetings but very quickly and move on so I avoid creating a confusing discussion. I would be on the payroll calls initially and I would tell everyone to call me if any other employee wants to do this. The participant election of after-tax on the recordkeeper site would have to be managed well too.

We just received the 2025 SECURE 2.0 Amendment from ftWilliam. Most, if not all, of our clients will be going with the default selections in the amendment. Out of curiosity, are firms having their clients formally adopt the amendment now, or are most waiting until the required deadline of December 31, 2026? Thank you!

The concept of a recordkeeper requesting an indicator is separate from administering Roth catch-ups. As the honorable WCC notes the recordkeepers want the indicator for targeted communications and also for monitoring after end of the year. But I am not aware of any recordkeepers doing more than that- so in reality regardless of whether an indicator is shared with the recordkeeper payroll providers are effectively responsible for the administration.

Isn't one advantage signing after 12/31 not filing 5500 form? Actuarial certifications still need to be done For example (extreme one): S-corp (with employees) decides to start one on 9/14, signs and funds on 9/15. If wanted to file 5500 form, has to file on 9/15 (special extension) as no 5558 to extend to 10/15. Of course, it is assumed that s-corp tax filing is on extension. Full disclosure, not a fan of above but happened once or twice😁 CuseFan has made good points. But more and more I think and encourage, the clients should start the plans after year end as the census data would be final and available and also allow a better design than making one up during the year as census changes all the time. Just saying it.

Yeah I think it's weird they highlight that distinction since you can only contribute for under 18 folks anyway. How many under 18 employees wanted to contribute to their own Trump account? Pretty much a non-issue. The BIG deal I think from this is that it seems to suggest employees will be able to make pre-tax salary reduction contribution elections (presumably up to $2,500, reduced by any employer contribution) for Trump accounts of a dependent. There's no way to make deductible contributions outside of payroll. So all of a sudden the name of the game in Trump accounts is going to be to get your employer to throw them into the cafeteria plan, and then always make sure to utilize the pre-tax option through payroll before ever considering a regular nondeductible contribution. Given that most employers are working with a FSA TPA that offers a variety of cafeteria plan benefits in a unified login (health FSA, dependent care FSA, commuter, HSA), it seems that adding Trump accounts with employee pre-tax contributions would be an easy flip to switch to offer a pretty meaningful benefit to employees at almost no cost.

We use FT Williams. We tried to help a client file a 5330 to pay the excise tax for an over contribution. FT Williams tells us the filing rejected because the form was late and money was due. They however don't give us any insight how to get the payment and filing done in the correct order. If anyone has done this successfully we could use some insights on how to do this. This was so much easier with the old paper forms.

I have had this done with clients in the past and as long as it was all fixed in the same calendar year and all the reporting is corrected by payroll - it was deemed "corrected" - no harm, no foul. In some cases, payroll had it right, but the deposit to the plan accounts was uploaded incorrectly (an easier situation to correct). We may have documented the correction of the operation error and self-correction via resolution (especially if the plan is subject to audit - this helps). I think the key in administration is to ensure someone(s) is always minding the store and proving that. The split payroll thing between allocating an deferral election between both pre-tax and ROTH (whether deemed or not) will no doubt be an issue next year. I don't see many participants catching it, let alone catching it timely. This needs to be a check/limit at the payroll level.

There are different options you could take for how to handle. There's no right answer here--just what you find to be the most appropriate for your situation. The employee already authorized the deductions via the Sections 125 cafeteria plan election, so that's not an issue. The options are: Spread Repayment Over Multiple Pay Periods: Take the missed contribution amount in intervals over the remainder of the year. Lump Sum Repayment: Take the missed contribution amount in a lump sum. Convert Missed Amounts to Employer Contributions: Forgive the employee contributions and not require the employees to repay. I posted a full walkthrough on all these options (including template employee communications) here-- https://www.newfront.com/blog/correcting-missed-cafeteria-plan-contributions Slide summary: Newfront Office Hours Webinar: Section 125 Cafeteria Plans

Cuse is correct. If your client needs proof, you can point them to IRC sec. 401(k)(12) which requires that the contribution be made to "each employee who is not a highly compensated employee and who is eligible to participate in the arrangement." Also see Example 4 in 1.401(k)-3(c)(7) of the regulations which is exactly on point that you can not impose a last day requirement on a safe harbor contribution.