The final regs allow this. Other than for possible administrative simplicity/consistency, is there any other good reason to do this? I can't think of one. Most of our clients (we are primarily smaller plan market) would prefer NOT to be forced into HPI status if not required to do so.

Thoughts?

Employee A works for Company X. For 2025, A elected family medical coverage under X's health plan. Family coverage costs the employee $275 in monthly premium payments. Employee A was actually charged $300 per month for such coverage. X's health plan discovers the error in the third quarter of 2025. Is X required to repay A the amount of the extra premium amount? Is X required to include interest on the reimbursed premium amount?

I can't believe this happenned!  This client is very responsive and always gets to me the annual census, financial info, and once completed the 5500 signed so that we can file quickly.  Unfortunately, for 2023 I just didn't hit the file button so the 5500 didn't get filed.  2024 has been filed.  They received and sent to me the love letter from the IRS saying that they don't have record of receiveing the 5500 for 2023.    So...

• Can I still do the DFVC?  No penalty letter has been received. 
• Is there no way to plead to the IRS to let it go?  I can show a long history of better than timely filing
  I'm going to have to eat this one aren't I.   People make mistakes... there was no ill intent... it was just missed.  Give a small TPA a break!

What's the best way to go about this??

Hello - is anyone familiar with a 3(16) service agreement and what is typical language for indemnification? We are reviewing a contract for a potential 3(16) for our client.  For example, I have seen one agreement refer to the indemnification of fiduciaries in the basic plan document and another one that limits liability to the fees collected from the Employer in the prior 36 months preceding the date of the error, which would equate to a total of $18,000.Thank you for any insight.

The plan has a total of 14 eligible participants, comprising 4 Highly Compensated Employees (HCEs) and 10 Non-Highly Compensated Employees (NHCEs). It uses statutory eligibility and includes both Safe Harbor Matching and Profit Sharing under a new comparability formula.

The client has elected to provide a Profit Sharing contribution of 5.6% to all HCEs and 1.86% to only 4 NHCEs. Using ASC software, we performed cross-testing under the Annual Accrual method with Permitted Disparity.

Based on the plan design and testing methodology, it is our understanding that the plan is not subject to the Gateway minimum contribution requirement because only Profit Sharing no other nonelective contribution. Accordingly, we have overridden the status of the remaining 6 NHCEs to “N/A” to facilitate passing the nondiscrimination tests. Both the Average Benefit Percentage Test and the Rate Group Test have passed.

However, during the Coverage Test for Profit Sharing, the plan initially failed due to an NHCE ratio of 40% (4 out of 10 NHCEs receiving contributions). In cross testing, concentration ratio was calculated at 71%, with the Safe Harbor threshold at 41.75%, Non-Safe Harbor at 31.75%, and the midpoint at 36.75%. Since the coverage ratio fell below the Safe Harbor threshold, the plan failed through Average Benefit Percentage Test.

To ensure the plan passes the coverage test under the Average Benefit Test, I allocated a nominal $1 Profit Sharing contribution to one additional NHCE, thereby treating them as benefiting under the plan. This increased the NHCE benefiting count from 4 to 5, raising the coverage ratio to 50%. Since the Safe Harbor threshold is 41.25%, the plan is deemed to pass the coverage test.

However, I’m uncertain whether allocating just $1 is sufficient for compliance purposes, or if I should have applied the same 1.86% contribution that was provided to the other NHCEs. The client has clearly stated they do not wish to increase contributions or modify the existing allocation structure.

I’ve proceeded with the $1 allocation to meet the testing requirement, but I’m posting this for feedback—would appreciate any insights on whether this approach is acceptable under current compliance standards.

How are plans typically set-up with regards to employee deferrals and matching contributions once someone hits the 401(a)(17) limit?

I believe most plans will still allow contributions once the limit has been reached (I've only seen one that stops contributions), but curious to know how matching contributions are handled once the comp limit has been reached.

Do plans have an option to match once the 401(a)(17) limit is reached or must they stop matching?  If stopping is a requirement, what section of the law/code dictates that it must stop?

Also, if matching dollars must stop at the limit, won't a plan with a true-up negate some of the negative impact a high earner might experience.  For example, a plan that matches 100% of contributions up to 6%, wouldn't that provide up to $21,000 in matching contributions in catch-up?  So maybe the impact would be the timing of when an employee potentially receives the match?

Thanks in advance.

For the 12/31/2024 plan year, the client has several unresolved compliance issues from the 2022 plan year that remain uncorrected as of 2025. Specifically, there is a 402(g) excess deferral of $2,000 for Participant A, who is a non-highly compensated employee (NHCE), and a 415(c) excess annual addition of $6,000 for Participant B. Based on the records available, neither of these excesses has been corrected or reported to date.

In addition, another plan has two uncorrected issues from the 2022 plan year related to plan-imposed limits. First, a deferral was made in excess of the plan’s stated deferral limit (as defined in the plan document), separate from the statutory 402(g) limit. Second, the employer matching contributions were calculated at 3.5% of compensation, whereas the plan document limited the match to 3%. This resulted in an excess matching contribution. As of 2025, neither the excess deferral (under the plan-imposed limit) nor the excess match has been corrected — the excess deferral was not returned to the participant, and the excess match was not distributed or reallocated to the forfeiture account.

1. What is the appropriate method of correction under IRS guidance, specifically for each of the following issues: the uncorrected 402(g) excess, 415(c) excess, plan-imposed deferral limit violation, and the excess employer match?

2. What penalties, if any, apply to the plan sponsor for not correcting these issues within the applicable correction window?

3. What are the tax implications for both the plan sponsor and the affected participants upon correction of each issue, including income inclusion, excise taxes, and any other tax consequences?

4. What IRS forms are required to properly report the corrections (e.g., Form 1099-R for corrective distributions, Form 5330 for excise taxes, or other applicable forms)?

Clarification is also needed on whether these issues may be corrected under the Self-Correction Program (SCP), considering the time elapsed and the types of failures involved, or whether a Voluntary Correction Program (VCP) filing is required — particularly for the plan-imposed limits and uncorrected statutory excess.

The plan document allows for the distributions of After-Tax Employee Contributions at any time.

In this case, can you rollover the After-Tax Contributions (in a 401(k) plan) directly into a Roth IRA?

I believe you can and the code should be code "G".

Is that correct?

The Federal Register is scheduled tomorrow to publish the IRS notice of PTIN user fees for 2026.  It will say the "amount of the user fee as $10 per application or application for renewal, plus an $8.75 fee per application or application for renewal payable directly to a third-party contractor."  There are 14 pages of history and legislation disclosing how the IRS arrived at the new number.

The "big" news is a reduction in the PTIN user fee to $10 from $11.  (Start planning now on how to use this windfall. 😀)

Imagine there is a US government shutdown in October. (In the past 30 years, shutdowns were 1995—26 days, 2013—16 days, 2018—38 days.) Imagine the shutdown lasts through October.

Imagine the Bureau of Labor Statistics report on inflation to September 30, usually released in October, is not released until late November.

Imagine the Internal Revenue Service’s yearly notice of inflation adjustments for retirement plans, usually released in early November, is not released until mid-December.

What steps would you change or delay while waiting for the IRS’s notice?

Would you put estimates in your software? Or wait for the official notice?

If there is a communication to send, would you:

delay it, if it’s not required by 30 days before 2026?

send it, but describe limits or factors without specifying an amount?

send it, with estimates (flagged as estimated) for each inflation-adjusted amount?

How else might a delay of inflation adjustments affect your work?

It is maddening to have competing rules for 457(f) plans to postpone the taxable event. The 2016 proposed regs. require a 90 day notice, a minimum 2 year deferral period, and a benefit enhancement greater than 25%. However, because 457(f) plans are also subject to 409A, when applicable, it seems that a postponement election must also meet the 1 year advance notice/ 5 year minimum postponement requirements of 409A. 

If both statues apply, the rule in the 2016 proposd regs is meaningless except for the requirement to add the enhancement. In other words, complying solely with 90 day notice and 2 year postponement results in an automatic 409A violation. This makes no sense, but I have yet to see anyone in this field take the more logical position just to follow the postponement rule in the proposed 457(f) regs and to ignore the 1 year/5 year 409A procedures. 

Has anyone taken the aggressive position to ignore 409A procedures and just follow he 457(f) procedures? This would seem to be good faith, because I haven't seen anything from IRS that definitively requires that both postponement procedures be followed. 

This is something I have not had any experience with. Trying to read but not too clear on how and when and what can be done.

A very recent takeover plan for 2024, EOY val. Cannot determine the benefits calculated by prior firm and waiting them to explain but not likely by 9/30/2025.

2024 AFTAP was certified at 110% back in September 2024 and prior years have always been over 100%

By looking at the possible benefits and nice return on investments, I think the actual AFTAP will be certified well over 100% (based on some conservative calculations). Client already deposited 2024 contribution, nice sum. Small plan with 3 participants.

Thinking of generating a range AFTAP for 2025 with at least 100% (based on prior history) and have it certified by 9/30/2025 so that the plan can avoid any restrictions.

If the above is doable, when does the actual AFTAP for 2025 needs to be certified or am I wrong that the actual AFTAP has to be certified by 9/30/2025?

Thanks

I recently ran across this book, "A Year in the Life of a TPA"-- I downloaded it on Kindle (free) and was impressed by how it simplifies a lot of the "annual cycle" we deal with as TPAs. It seems like a short-but-sweet outline of otherwise complex work. I am considering ordering a few copies for our staff. Has anyone purchased this specific guide? What other reference guides do you recommend for a TPA firm to keep on hand?

Year 6 of a one participant DB had no AFTAP done.

Therefore benefit accruals are frozen as of the end of year 5. That means no benefit increase for year 6 until a subsequent AFTAP is done and is high enough such that prior year's benefit accruals are restored.

My understanding though is that for funding purposes, that is not an issue for year 6.

In other words freeze the benefits because of no AFTAP but go back and assume a benefit accrual for funding purposes. In other words, benefits are frozen but not considered frozen for funding purposes.

Does anyone agree / disagree?

Thanks!

A SERP of a tax exempt org, provided for vested payment at age 65. Like most such SERPs it was structured as a 457(f) short term deferral. The SERP was later amended to allow the CEO/participant the right to select an earlier vested retirement date, provided it was (A) at least 12 months after the election, and (B) was forfeitable if he resigned prior to that new date.

Allowing a participant this much discretion at first concerned me. However, it is not illegal for employers to accelerate short term deferrals. What is wrong with an employer delegating that power to a covered participant? These are just short term deferrals.

If that does not trigger income tax at the date the power was given the participant, what would be the tax date? Would it be 12 months after the power was granted, i.e. the first day after the 12 months, or would it be the actual date the participant elected if later than 12 months? 

Hmmm. The person who drafted this amendment was in the HR Department and was insensitive to 457(f) but I wonder if this design actually works. My primary concerns are constructive receipt and/or the fact that IRS could consider vesting to be a charade after the first 12 months when the participant has this much control. 

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

Curious on thoughts about offering both an cash in lieu incentive and a spousal incentive HRA. 

When reconciling employee deferral/Roth contributions to deposits on an annual basis there is a shortage (and overage) for some participants - but a net shortage overall. When this doesn't tie out to a specific payroll (or at least doesn't appear to since I don't have payroll and deposit detail by paycheck) and the amounts can be small ($4 or $20, for example) - do you report these amounts on the 5500 as late deposits? Would you need to track down the shorted paycheck for lost earnings calculations?

Hello,

I’m a terminated participant in a small employer-sponsored Defined Benefit Pension Plan that was retroactively amended after the plan sponsor realized employees were mistakenly excluded. I’m looking for advice from those familiar with ERISA compliance and DB administration — especially regarding timelines for distribution, participant communication, and what constitutes a “reasonable” delay.

Here’s a timeline of events for context:

🗂️ Timeline of Events

Mar 2012 – Began employment at Company A.
2015 – Company B launched; work shifted there, but payroll remained under Company A.
Jan 2020 – Owner established a Defined Benefit Plan without informing or including employees.
Aug 2024 – Employees notified the plan would be frozen effective August 31.
➡️ Plan sponsor claimed he had received bad advice and was correcting the error.

Sept 2024 – I was involuntarily terminated shortly before turning 55.
➡️ Termination was attributed to cost concerns related to plan corrections.

Oct 2024 – Received an estimated benefit calculation (2020–2023 only).
➡️ Sponsor stated 2024 portion was still pending.
➡️ I turned 55 and became eligible for benefit commencement under ERISA.

Dec 2024 – Mar 2025 – Followed up multiple times. Sponsor provided vague responses, no new documents, and no updated calculation.

Jun 2025 – Sponsor stated original actuary was replaced by a new vendor who is re-reviewing everything.
➡️ Promised to resend plan documents and updated estimate — nothing received.
➡️ I spoke with DOL rep, who said resolution was expected by September 2025.

Sept 2025 – With four days left in the month, still no update. I followed up again.
➡️ Sponsor responded defensively, said the situation is "stressful" and “complicated,” and that he “can’t provide details” until authorized. Also discouraged me from speaking to DOL or other employees — despite his lack of communication.

My Questions:

• Is it common or acceptable for a DB plan sponsor to take over a year to finalize calculations for 7 or fewer employees?

• Does switching actuarial firms justify months of silence with no updated estimate or election paperwork?

• At what point does this become a breach of fiduciary duty or an enforceable ERISA violation?

• What recourse does a participant have when the plan sponsor won't respond, and DOL appears to be passively monitoring?

Thanks in advance for any insights. I'm trying to avoid escalation, but the silence and lack of transparency have gone on far too long.