I'm sure this has been asked already and I have probably missed it.  Does the "small" plan status also extend to deposit timing rules with the new 2023 DOL change to the participant counting methodology?  I have a client with 1,000 plus eligible plan participants but less than one hundred participants with account balances, so are they a small plan with regard to the deposit timing rules? 

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

Now that SIMPLE plans can allow Roth, can you roll SIMPLE Roth into a 401k Roth?

I know regular Roth IRAs cannot be rolled into a 401k plan but couldn't find any rules on SIMPLE plans.

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

We processed the ADP failure in March 2025 - client just provided new census and now ADP failure amount is significantly less after re-test. Trying to find the proper way to correct, not seeing anything specific on my situation. Any input is appreciated

In 2026, if catch-up reclass is required for an ADP test failure, do we need to convert the catch-up to Roth for employees that are HCE due to compensation?

What is a plan does not allow for Roth, does the reclassed catch-up get refunded instead?

The exclusion from income for an employer’s contribution to a Trump account is Internal Revenue Code § 128.

Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C.) § 125(f)(1) defines, generally, a “qualified benefit” as “any benefit which, with the application of subsection (a), is not includible in the gross income of the employee by reason of an express provision of this chapter [§§ 1®1400Z-2] (other than section 106(b), 117, 127, or 132).”

After § 128’s effective date and assuming fitting timing regarding all plan and tax years,

Could an employer’s contribution to a Trump account be a qualified benefit under a § 125 plan?

Client has hit some hard times, but wants to continue to benefit the employees (at least for now).  They reduced the contribution to the owners in 2023, but now need to reduce their contributions again.

Generally I know you can't change the benefit annually.  However, if the employees stay the same and it's just the owners who are taking a reduction (possibly as low as $0), would that be viewed as acceptable?

I don't see an issue, since it's only the HCE who are being negatively impacted.  I just wanted to confirm that I wasn't overlooking anything.

View the full text of this job opportunity

Curious as to whether anyone with a "pipeline" or "contact" at the IRS has heard any rumors as to whether this foolish rule will be changed? It just isn't reasonable for someone who is a former LTPT and now a "regular" employee to receive a year of vesting credit for working 600 hours, whereas someone who started as a "regular" employee must work 1,000 hours to receive a year of vesting credit.

Not to mention, of course, the administrative nightmare and client confusion...

Per the audit report, there is an amount reported as a transfer out and within the footnote, it is indicating that assets were refunded to the company for the provision of benefits for or on the behalf of participants for claims incurred.  On the Schedule H, is this reported under 2e(3) as an 'other' benefit payment and payments to provide benefits or under 2l(2) as a transfer out or within another field?  Initially, I thought it would be a transfer out, but the assets went back to the company and not to another plan, so I wasn't sure the plan information to report under 5b which is required if reported it as a transfer out.  Any guidance on this topic is appreciated.  Thanks. 

Hi

Looking at a possible takeover plan which I think there may be an issue with deduction. I think I know the answer (sorry, a bit fried brain today) but want to see if anyone has a fresh look and comment. My apologies for a rather long explanation. If I am not clear in any of the points, please let me know.

Not sure if a CG or ASG or if any at all but for arguments sake let's say either CG or ASG (still waiting on info).

Looking at 2023. this is a DB plan.

Prior TPA valuation report shows 300k as salary for pension purposes. Deduction was 200k.

Company A (a partnership) sponsors the plan. The majority partner's se income in box 14A shows 300k. There is also 500k under box 14C - non-farm income (which cannot be used for pension, if I recall correctly). Assume the other partner is silent and has no box 14A income. 

If this was the only company sponsoring the plan with ASG/CG, even the though the deduction is within 300k se income limits under box 14A, the salary is definitely not as they would need 14A to be over 500k+ (excluding the 1/2 se tax adjustment), as per prior TPA report.

Now, Company B (a sole proprietorship), which is part of CG/ASG as assumed above and owned by the majority partner 100%. Line 31 of the schedule c shows 300k (but not adopted the plan).

If I recall correctly, for 415 limit purposes, you add both entities, please correct me on this.

However, for pension/deduction purposes, one cannot add both incomes for valuation purposes, only Company A can be used, please correct me on this as well.

Let's assume that it was intended that both companies to adopt the plan, say, going back to 2019, inception year (I have a feeling the plan operated similar to 2023 in prior years, afraid to ask/check but must).

Can this be corrected without VFCP i.e. is there a self-correction on this or must file with the IRS for correction? Any other comments/suggestions?

Thank you for your time.

View the full text of this job opportunity

I just cannot imagine that there will be any delays in mandatory Roth catch-ups, right?  I mean ADP, PayChec, Paylocity, PayCor, Paycom collectively must have spent hundreds of millions. Recordkeepers made substantial investments.  I just cannot imagine it would not cost tens of millions more to delay.

And then there is part about S20 being revenue neutral, paid for in large part by these mandatory roth catch-ups.

But here is an article from Willis Towers Watson saying it is possible.  It can't be possible though, can it?  I could see them saying "any good faith effort will be treated as not a failure even if something slips through the cracks."  But not put it on hold altogether.

https://www.wtwco.com/en-us/insights/2025/08/roth-catch-up-requirement-effective-date-developments

This is possibly a stupid question but need to check.

Company A and Company B are CG.

Setting up a plan for Company A (sponsor) where Company B is an adopting employer.

Plan excludes leased employees.

Owner contacts and says, a Company A leases employees to Company B, the leased employees should not be excluded.

I read the section for leased employees under basic plan document and my understanding is that Company A is not a "leasing organization". I do not think it applies here as it is a different definition like a temp agency or something like that.

Besides as both entities are CG and no employees are excluded, who cares.

Am I missing something here?

Thanks

View the full text of this job opportunity