My current provider for both val and 5500 programs had informed me of a 10% jump in monthly fees which I find a bit too high (I have been using them for 30+ years).

I think I need to look into a more modern and 21st century system.

I use it primarily for CB/DB and combo plans and need simple DC as well (I do not deal with RKs) as good testing system.

I would appreciate your experiences with other systems (except for Relius).

Thank you.

A participant of a welfare benefit fund passed away. However, his primary beneficiary has been deported and the plan officials have been unsuccessful in attempt to locate her. Can the plan treat the beneficiary as having predeceased the participant and make the benefit payable to any contingent beneficiary or, if none, the plan's default beneficiary? Alternative, can the plan treat the beneficiary as a missing beneficiary and treat the death benefit as it would with respect to any other missing participant or beneficiary under the plan?

Someone is confused and I hope it's not me.

I was reading someone's post and i believe it read "you can't avoid LTPT.

I was also reading a few articles that one will never need to be concerned as long as the plan is amended, if need be, for eligibility to be eligible for plan entry to delete reference, by amendment, to elapsed time, 1 year for deferrals, safe harbor (of course) but leave the provision and any reference to 1 year/1,000 hours only to employer non-elective contribution.

I'd be curious how many have done this and if not, why not.

View the full text of this job opportunity

Follow up to earlier thread

Hello @Brian Gilmore, thanks for sharing these details. We’ve found ourselves in a very similar situation and would appreciate your guidance.

During last year’s open enrollment for the current year (2025), I enrolled in a PPO plan with my employer and elected an FSA with a contribution of $1,100. I was the only one covered under that plan. At the same time, my wife enrolled in an HDHP through her employer, covered herself and our daughter, and opened an HSA. We didn’t realize then that an FSA and HSA can’t coexist between spouses.

I was laid off in mid-January. My employer had already opened the FSA and deposited the full $1,100, even though only $43 was deducted from my paycheck. I didn’t learn about the account until recently when I contacted the custodian to close an old HSA. After I lost my job in January 2025, I moved to my wife’s HDHP, and she increased her HSA contributions with the goal of reaching the family limit of $8,550. After reading your thread, she has now asked her HR team to stop contributions for December.

With that context, I’m hoping you can help confirm a few points:

1. Since I lost my job in mid-January but had an active FSA at that time, were my wife’s HSA contributions still allowed for the rest of the year?

2. If partial-year eligibility applies, is the maximum HSA contribution prorated to 11 months, meaning 11/12 of $8,550 ($7,837.50)?

3. I haven’t used any of the $1,100 in the FSA. The FSA provider shows the account as active and says I can still use the funds. Is that correct?

Thanks again for your insights, Brian. Your expertise is genuinely helpful.

I'd love the thinking of folks who are more well-versed in SIMPLEs.

Company A maintains a SIMPLE IRA in 2024 & 2025; several employees of Company A create their own Company B in 2025. Company A maintained a SIMPLE IRA (I'm not sure if the SIMPLE IRA is still active); Company B established a 06/01/25 effective date SH 401(k) Plan (short Plan Year). Company A & B have different EINS with no ownership crossover.

I understand that when an employer establishes a mid-year 401(k) Plan that the deferral limit is adjusted based on the # of days/365 of each arrangement. Because these are two unrelated employers, my thinking is that this does not apply to this scenario, so all EEs can contribute the total $23.5k between the two arrangements if they would like (a maximum of $16.5k being attributable to the SIMPLE IRA).

• Do you agree that the deferral limit for the Company B 401(k) Plan does not need to be pro-rated based on the number of days it was in existence vs. the SIMPLE IRA?
• Since catch-up contributions are separate to each Plan, can a 50+ participant who contributed $10k to the SIMPLE IRA under Company A defer an additional $24.5k to the Company B 401(k) Plan? ($6.5k SIMPLE deferrals, $3.5k SIMPLE catch-up, $17k 401(k) deferrals, $7.5k 401(k) catch-up)
• If the Company B employees are still employees of Company A and participating in the Company A SIMPLE IRA, does that matter? Or is it just a consideration in that both the non-catch up deferrals to each arrangement count towards their overall 402(g) limit?
• As I write this out, I imagine that a relevant consideration is whether Company B and Company A constitute an ASG. If they do, would their contributions be subject to the adjusted deferral limits based on the days/365 of each arrangement?

Hello,

A former employer offered an ESOP payout in lump sum. They will be diversifying the assets for anyone who does not take the lump sum, and the investment will be into a money market account. To reframe this more concisely, my shares will be purchased back by the company prior to 12/31/2025. I know the company is likely experienced more thanv a 3X increase in share value due to their rapid growth in the past year. The most recent valuation was at 12/31/2024. Will they need to perform an interim valuation, or will my shares be valued at the 12/31/2024 value, which is almost certainly 1/3 or less of the current value of shares? Anything I should do? Wondering if there are attorneys who specialize in this area whom I should consult with, or if this is a lost cause. Thank you!

The Treasury’s rule to implement § 414(v)(7)’s requirement that a higher-wage participant’s age-based catch-up deferrals must be Roth contributions includes this:

“Permitted correction on Form W–2. A plan may correct a section 414(v)(7) failure by transferring the catch-up contribution (adjusted for earnings and losses in accordance with § 1.402(g)–1(e)(5)) from the participant’s pre-tax account to the participant’s designated Roth account and reporting the contribution (not adjusted for earnings and losses) as an elective deferral that is a designated Roth contribution on the participant’s Form W–2 for the year in which the elective deferral was originally excluded from the participant’s gross income. However, this correction method may be used only if the participant’s Form W–2 for that year has not been filed or furnished to the participant.” 26 C.F.R. § 1.414 (v)–2(c)(2)(ii) (final and effective, but not yet compiled).

I’m wondering whether a plan’s administration may do the converse: for deferrals that need not have been processed as Roth contributions, transfer that amount (adjusted for investment gain or loss) to the participant’s non-Roth subaccount and wage-report deferral amounts accordingly (if all steps are complete before W-2s run).

The Treasury’s rule doesn’t explicitly say so. Yet, it seems logical and within proper plan accounting. But I hope BenefitsLink neighbors would spot weaknesses in my logic.

Here’s my hypo:

A plan has only elective deferrals, no nonelective or matching contribution. The plan excludes key employees and highly-compensated employees. The plan provides no limit on elective deferrals beyond what’s needed for the plan to tax-qualify.

Suppose a 62-year-old § 414(v)(7)-affected participant has specified non-Roth for all her deferrals (and, despite the employer/administrator’s efforts, has not communicated anything about her preference regarding 2026’s Roth catch-up constraint). Her instruction for deferrals—specified by dollar amount, not a percentage of any measure of compensation—is $1,375 each pay.

Her deferrals for the year’s first 17 (of 26) pays are within the without-catch-up limit. The 18th pay would have most of its deferral allocated to the normal limit, but some to catch-up. And pays 19-26 would be wholly allocated to catch-up.

Imagine the employer, fearing a § 414(v)(7) failure, mistakenly stops this participant’s non-Roth deferrals sooner than is necessary and, applying what the administrator assumes is a deemed election, treats as Roth contributions some of what could properly be non-Roth deferrals. The participant, still inattentive, ignores the employer/administrator’s communications.

On Friday, January 1, 2027, the participant (following her New Year’s Day custom) checks, online, her plan account, and sees the unrequested amounts in Roth subaccounts. On Saturday, she asks her friend, an associate in a law firm’s employee-benefits practice, about this. After hearing him explain the essence of § 414(v)(7), she explains she prefers non-Roth, and wants to tolerate Roth only for a deferral that can’t be made as non-Roth. He suggests, cautiously, that she ask her employer whether it will adjust amounts between the Roth and non-Roth subaccounts. On Monday, the participant calls her employer.

The payroll and human-resources managers both are willing to do adjustments and complete them before W-2s are run, but only if the retirement plan’s third-party administrator says it would be proper.

BenefitsLink neighbors, would you suggest allowing such a Roth to non-Roth transfer?

What issues am I missing?

We have discovered that, due to a payroll setup issue, employee deferrals to our SIMPLE IRA plan were calculated on an after-tax basis instead of a pre-tax basis from January to July 2025. Can we fix this by adjusting the remaining payrolls in 2025 to ensure each participant's total annual deferral matches their elected percentage of compensation for the remainder of the year? What would be the appropriate correction method?

During a review of payroll deductions and benefits records, I discovered that one of our employees had a missed HCFSA deduction earlier this the year (system/timing issue from when the employee started his employment).  If no corrective action is taken, the employee will be about $120 short of his elected annual goal.

When I reached out to the employee to make him aware of the situation, he stated he does not want additional money to be taken out of an upcoming paycheck as a correction - he wants to leave things alone.

What are my options?  Are we required to take the additional $120 before the end of year to ensure that money deferred equals his annual election?  If the employee objects, what regulation/statute/article am I pointing him to so that he understands that this is required?

Related but separate, If someone misses FSA contributions because they are on unpaid medical leave (not FMLA, but state mandated leave) and underfunds an FSA for the annually elected amount, how should that be addressed?

TIA

I hope you all have a great Thanksgiving, unsullied by productive thought. (We are having our meal on Saturday, as many family members can't make it tomorrow, so I'll be working tomorrow - great time to catch up on stuff with no phone/e-mails!)

View the full text of this job opportunity

I doubt this is possible but I wanted to be 100%.  We've always provided the 3% nonelective safe harbor to all eligible regardless of employment condition on last day or hours worked.  

A large client does not want the terminated employees to get 3% as the cost is fairly high.  A 3% profit sharing plan to those still employed does pass coverage but the plan will not pass ADP and the client is firm - no corrective distributions.    

Is it possible to test the terminated employees ADP (there are no HCEs in that group) and only give the safe harbor to those still employed?  The plan is not top heavy.

Just taking a wild shot on this. Thank you,

Tom

I review a lot of plans where eligibility is written as "Full-time employees working 30 hours per week".

To me, this raises multiple concerns:

First, it doesn't account for variable hour employees of ALEs and lookback/measurement/etc.  

Second, and more concerning to me, is that the language is loose.  If an employee hits 30 hours in one week, is that employee not then eligible?  Especially if 'Full-time' is not a defined term?  

There has to be a better way of drafting that, right?  Or am I just picking nits?

Thanks in advance!

Safe harbor 401k plan has a prior inactive discretionary match. For 2026 they are removing the safe harbor match and reinstating the discretionary match. Can the plan document use prior year testing under the first plan year method in order to assume 3% for NHCE’s for purposes of the ACP test? I was thinking no since there has previously been a discretionary match and adding it back does create a first plan year. But as always I appreciate your feedback!

We offered the new maximum DCFSA limit ($7,500), performed the test following our open enrollment period and have one HCE that elected the new maximum $7,500, that needs to be reduced in order to pass the test. My questions are:

1. Since it's possible for us to have another HCE enroll mid-year, am I correct that we have to apply the same reduction to any HCE mid-year enrollees? 

2. If yes, how do we determine what the reduced amount should be? 

3. Other than exclude HCEs altogether moving forward or setting a low election maximum, is there anything else I'm missing? 

View the full text of this job opportunity

We are taking over a client whose TPA messed up the original plan setup and didn't put in the correct provisions for certain things (particularly Normal Retirement Age & Vesting Schedule).  The question is, how far back can we go to correct these things (the plan is roughly 2 years old, the client just didn't notice the error until now)?  Or can we not do them retroactively and just have to do it moving forward.

I'll be honest, this is one I've never encountered so I wanted to be sure we did it correctly.

View the full text of this job opportunity

Hi folks,

Anyone have any recommendation for an IT service provider who excels at Security and can host a virtual TPA practice? Just found out my local service provider is getting out of the business as soon as possible so hoping to make a move by year's end.

Thanks to anyone. If more comfortable, can message me direct.