I had a supervisor instruct one of our employees to prepare a plan amendment effective in 2024 to add a Roth Rollover source. Apparently a client's employee rolled money into their 401k plan back in 2024, but it was Roth. The plan didn't allow for Roth Rollovers. From my years if knowledge and recent research, I don't see how this would be allowed. The correction would be to remove the funds from the plan. Please provide some help and guidance. Thanks.

View the full text of this job opportunity

This is a situation I have never encountered before in all these years (too many of them) and the client just dumped it on me today.

CB/DC combo.

CB funded by 9/15.

DC SH and PS will not be done by 10/15 but by 12/31. PS portion is also towards gateway and top heavy- standard.

2 questions:

• Is this approach kosher?
• What if they do not complete by 12/31? Top heavy, SH and gateway for 2025 is not satisfied

Any other issues I am not anticipating?

Thanks

After several months of hard work, I have designed A.I. that gives a structured analysis of affiliated service group and controlled group determinations under Section 414. The level of reasoning provided cannot be matched by ERISApedia, Chatgpt, Claude, etc...

The program thoroughly analyzes all aspects, including entity and family attribution to the "judgement" issues such as what constitutes "performance of services", "services organization", "regularly performing services" are analyzed. The program gives a structured layout of the issues involved, the facts pointing in one direction or another, and probability of affiliated service group status. When facts are missing or incomplete, it still provides an analysis with differential outcomes. 

The program has been trained with over 500 real life affiliated service group scenarios that I have analyzed for it. It is currently going through beta testing. Of course, ERISA attorney analysis would be required to confirm the analysis, but it will significantly reduce ERISA attorney time.

Before starting on the project, I should have asked how people in the retirement industry would view such a product. But, it was such a neat experience for me that I decided to create it anyway. At the very least, I could use it myself. What are your opinions?

View the full text of this job opportunity

It is now September 18, 2026.  

26 CFR §1.401(a)(9)-6(q)(3)(vii)(C)  - https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-1/subject-group-ECFR6f8c3724b50e44d/section-1.401(a)(9)-6

states: 

“(vii) Treatment of former spouses —

(A) In general.  The payment of survivor benefits to the employee's former spouse under an annuity contract will not cause the contract to fail to satisfy the requirements of this paragraph (q)(3) merely because the divorce between the employee and that former spouse occurred after the contract is purchased, provided that a qualified domestic relations order described in section 414(p) (or, to the extent provided in paragraph (q)(3)(vii)(B) of this section, a divorce or separation instrument) satisfying the requirements of paragraph (q)(3)(vii)(C) of this section has been issued in connection with the divorce.

(B) [Reserved]

(C) Applicable requirements.  This paragraph (q)(3)(vii)(C) is satisfied if the qualified domestic relations order (or divorce or separation instrument) issued in connection with the divorce—

(1) Provides that the former spouse is entitled to the survivor benefits under the contract;

(2) Provides that the former spouse is treated as a surviving spouse for purposes of the contract;

(3) Does not modify the treatment of the former spouse as the beneficiary under the contract who is entitled to the survivor benefits; or

(4) Does not modify the treatment of the former spouse as the measuring life for the survivor benefits under the contract.”

My issues are the same. 

Facts:  John and Mary are married.  Mary is guilty of adultery and John is planning to file for divorce.  He wants to convert his 401(k) Plan to a QLAC.  He concludes that a QLAC distribution that allows him to delay his RMDs is a better option than having the Court award Mary an immediate lump sum following the entry of the Judgment of Divorce.  John is concerned that if Mary gets a lump sum and dies after she has married her paramour, her share of John's 401(k) will pass to her paramour.    

John walks into the Plan Administrator's office and asks, "Do I need to give notice to Mary and/or have her consent my contemplated purchase of a QLAC?"  The answer should be "no" since the QLAC will be in the form of a 50% QJSA where spousal consent is not required.  Correct me if I am mistaken. 

If the Plan Administrator's answer is that spousal consent is not required, the second question (from my Benefitslink blog) is whether at the time of a future divorce a state Court can enter a  QDRO that will supersede and thereby void the election of the QLAC and award Mary an immediate lump sum?  

What is John retires and rolls his 401(k) into an IRA.  Are the answers above the same for IRA accounts? 

I hope you can help.  This is the real world for my clients. 

Thanks, 

David 

Plan cover the 4 children of the owner (sponsor is s-corp) - owner is not a participant.

Can this plan file 5500EZ?

I say yes, agree?

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

Due to the new Roth catch-up mandate, we have a couple plans with situations where the Roth indicator did not get turned on properly to allow the deemed Roth spillover. This is some new territory for me!  I am checking on corrections - 1. any QNEC will be pre-tax for missed Roth, 2. if the missed contribution occurred more than 3 months ago then a 25% QNEC will be due based on missed deferrals during the applicable period of the year. How is this correction feasible under the Roth catch up mandate? It does not make sense that their catch ups will be a pre tax QNEC.  Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Employer deposited employee deferrals late in 2023.  One "set" of late contributions was deposited during 2023.  The excise tax associated with this set is below $100.  Another set of deferrals were not deposited until 2026.  The excise tax on that set is over $100.  In reporting on the Form 5330 for 2023, I assume all late deferrals are combined for 2023 and the tax calculated on the total lost earnings, regardless of when the late deferrals were actually corrected (with additional Form 5330s for 2024, 2025 and 2026 for the contributions that were not corrected until 2026).  Employer is filing a VFCP application for the late contributions in 2023.  How do the waiver of excise tax rules (PTE 2002-51) apply for the excise taxes owed for 2023?  Can we view the two sets of late deferrals separately, where the excise taxes on the first "set" can be waived because they are less than $100 and just pay the excise tax on the other set (the tax is over $100 and the correction was well past the 180 day deadline for waiver).  I am inclined to just treat it as one prohibited transaction for the year and pay the entire excise tax owed.  But I am seeing some discussion about only reporting the late deferrals in 2023 that were not corrected until 2026 because the excise tax for the other late deferrals that were corrected in 2023 are waived because they were under $100.  I can't find any legal authority for this position and wanted to see if anyone else has had this issue come up.

I have been asked by a client, can my wife (who is a single member business and sponsors a 401(k) plan)... can her 401(k) purchase an investment from my IRA?  He has an investment that has a capital call and he doesn't have the $ to cover it.  His wife's 401(k) is flush with cash.   Can the do this?  Would it be a prohibited transaction? 

Thanks for any thoughts.

View the full text of this job opportunity

Based on the guidance issued so far, there are clearly many administrative requirements for a Section 128 Trump Account Contribution Program (TACP) including

• Developing a plan document 
• Disclosing the TACP to employees
• Performing three non-discrimination tests (and correction of failures)
• Collection of employee certifications (ie, that the beneficiary of the Trump Account is anticipated to be the employee's dependent; and the beneficiary's date of birth)
• If the employee has multiple dependents, how much of the employer contribution will be made to each dependent's Trump Account
• Verification that employer contribution was made to a valid Trump Account
• Notification to the Trump Account trustees that an amount is a Section 128 contribution
• If the TACP permits employee contributions through a Section 125 cafeteria plan, facilitating employee's changes to 125 deferral amounts
• Funding of employer contributions to each individual Trump Account (ignore this one for now as I am hoping that BNY develops a common remitter program)

My question is....who do you think will be performing these administrative services?

Payroll providers? Retirement Plan Recordkeepers/TPA's? Dependent Care Program providers? Employers themselves? Some new company/service provider that will enter the market? A combination of providers/employers themselves?

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

This is the first year that we have plans utilizing the option to make a Mega Backdoor Roth, so I want to make sure we're displaying the mega backdoor roth accurately.  Is the money put in just lumped in as an employee deferral?

Thanks in advance!

Hello, I am writing this time as a member of the Retirement Reform Group, an informal, nonpartisan group of active and retired employee benefits attorneys working to address lagging savings for lower- and moderate-income workers.  If you are interested in this issue (and I hope you are), our website is: retirementreform.org. 

Members of the Retirement Reform Group participating in the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel Annual Meeting Education Program in San Diego, CA (October 10, 2026) are pleased to share handouts prepared for the meeting. While the seminar itself is not open to the general public, the following materials are available on our webpage:
- The Urgent Need and Incredible Opportunity to Expand Retirement Coverage through Efficient Plan Design (Richard Shea)
- The Challenges and Promise of Lifetime Income in a Defined Contribution World (Norman Stein)
- The IRA Protection Gap: Missing ERISA Safeguards, Rollover Vulnerabilities, and Paths to More and Safer Retirement Savings (Phyllis C. Borzi, Cynthia Van Bogaert)
- Improving Access to Non-Conflicted Retirement Information for Individuals and Small Employers (Maria O'Brien, Mark Iwry/Matthew I. Whitehorn, Lisa Germano)
-Why Aren’t They Saving? Real Plan Design and Demographic Barriers for Lower- and Moderate-Income Workers (Lisa M. Gomez)

We invite policymakers, practitioners, and other stakeholders interested in improving lagging retirement savings for lower- and moderate-income workers to access these resources here: https://retirementreform.org/resources/ under the Presentations and Materials section. 

Again, I am not providing legal or tax advice.  These are for informational purposes only.  You may share them with others.  Note that the Retirement Reform Group is limited to Fellows of the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, but is not affiliated with the College.

If you have ideas about problems and solutions you see in your practice, I would love to hear your thoughts.

Cindy Van Bogaert 

Member, Retirement Reform Group

View the full text of this job opportunity