Just curious if this sounds correct.  If we have a plan with auto-enrollment, we are using our "normal" enrollment forms, normal meaning no auto-enroll language on them.  The individual elects to participate or not.  If the plan sponsor has a newly eligible employee complete this form (yes/no) for enrollment, the auto-enrollment is really a non-issue, correct?  It seems simple to me:  We have the auto-enroll language in the document and SPD, but if we have a clear yes/no from the participant on the form whether they want to participate or not, auto-enrollment is avoided altogether.  

Are we missing anything here?

Thank you

In the past, a terminated participant with a vested benefit payable from a pension plan had to be provided with annuity options (actually, the normal form of benefit) if the lump sum value of their benefit exceeded $5,000. In other words, terminees with a vested lump sum value of less than $5,000 could simply be paid a cash lump sum. Did this threshold go up to $7,000 with the SECURE Act? If so, then I would think a terminee with a vested lump sum value of less than $7,000 could just be paid a cash lump sum for plan years beginning in 2025.

Does anyone disagree with this?

Thanks!

A lot of participation agreements include a space for you to enter the merger effective date of a participating employer's plan (e.g. in the event of the acquisition of another entity's stock and the merger of their plan into the main plan).  The challenge that is always there is we don't necessarily know exactly when the assets are moving (at least not in time to execute relevant documents). My preference has always been to have the merger effective date be coincident with the transfer of assets to simplify reporting and to not commingle the plans with 2 recordkeepers.

Would an effective date of "Coincident with the transfer of assets from the trustee or custodian of the ABC 401(k) Plan, which is expected to take place on or about September 15, 2025." be sufficient?

Recently I was lucky enough to receive the PenChecks NIPA scholarship to go for either a AKS or APA designation. I don't currently have any official designations so it's a very exciting thing. I know NIPA and ASPPA both do similar things but in different ways. My firm has never really invested in continuing education but I've convinced by boss to invest in it as I really would like to start getting official recognition. That said, memberships to ASPPA and NIPA are expensive and required to keep a certification, and I'd hate to end up in a sunk cost fallacy sticking with NIPA if ASPPA might be more useful. A couple questions:

• I know NIPA offers a kind of equivalency system for designations from some other institutions (for example, ERPA qualifies you for AKS 1, 2, APA 1-4). Does ASPPA have anything like this where a AKS or APA designation would be able to be converted to an ASPPA designation in the case we chose to switch?
• What's the cost difference look like between being a NIPA member and obtaining CE credits each year for their qualifications vs at ASPPA? We're a relatively small firm and it'd be at least somewhat of a consideration.

Any insights would be very helpful, thank you.

The Internal Revenue Service has had six people lead the agency this year.

Now, Billy Long is out as IRS commissioner, with the Secretary of the Treasury serving as acting commissioner.

The deputy commissioner position is vacant.

The chief of staff role is vacant.

More than half the officer positions are vacant or “(acting)”.

What do we imagine about the pace of new examinations in 2025?

So, as far as I can tell, an "applicable collectively bargained plan" means maintained under a collectively bargained agreement ratified before 12/20/2019. Does this mean that if the agreement is "re-ratified" - or more recent than 12/20/2019, then the amendment deadline is 12/31/2026, as opposed to 12/31/2028? It would seem so, although that doesn't make a lot of sense to me...

Hi, 

Plan is terminating and the termination date is 07/31/2025.  The Plan sponsor wants to do a annual employer match true -up contribution which usually occurs in Jan for the pervious year.  They calculate the match throughout the year on a pay-check-by paycheck basis.

1) Since the plan is terminating I believe they should calculate and contribute to the plan for the period Jan 01-July 31 it will be for a short plan year correct? 

2) Should they wait until next year to do the contribution or can they do the calculation now and contribute? 

Hi,

I know that almost all DB plans provide that the 3 highest salary years for the salsry average must be consecutive. However, is it allowed to provide for the salary average to be any 3 highest years, even if not consecutive. A bit generous, but for an owner only plan it might be preferred?

It appears that if not consecutive the it creates a definitely determinable issue?

Thank you

View the full text of this job opportunity

Holding company has 15 wholly owned subsidiaries which all have separate qualified plans (mostly 401k plans). 

Does anybody have any tips/tricks for simplifying the process of performing (or avoiding?) coverage (and other?) testing across the controlled group? 

I'm not as familiar with Governmental Plans, but have a governmental hospital who is wanting to exclude a class of employees who choose to receive a higher compensation and give up their rights to participate in the plan?  Is this allowable?  I know they aren't governed by ERISA, so I wasn't sure what classes of employees could be defined to be excluded in the plan document.  This hospital has a 457(b) and a separate 401(a) for the employer match.  Thank you so much for any guidance you may have.

The Plan has a number of real estate properties held under the trust, including several that receive rent payments.  I believe that rents received from assets under the trust a part of the investment return.  My logic is that the properties are owned by the trust, and any rents received would be "investment earnings" and not contributions.  Am I off base?

View the full text of this job opportunity

I of course know about the ERISApedia and JH free webinars.  I need more than I've been able to get through that.  I do try and do the ASPPA spring/winter virtuals as well.  Any other suggestions out there?

I need this for ERPA designation.

A Solo 401(k) plan is part of a controlled Group. The owner of the company owns 100% of another company. He is not paid through that other company but has 2 employees.

The owner is not contributing anything to the Solo 401(k) in 2024, but he did not tell his employees in the other company about the 401(k) Plan and that they are eligible.

What would the correction process be?

Based on this link: https://www.dwc401k.com/knowledge-center/missed-deferral-opportunities, it looks like the correction method is to fund the average deferral rate of participant's group. However, nobody is receiving any contributions in the Solo 401(k) plan. Would there be no Missed Deferral Opportunity in this case?

Thanks!

ERISA does not bar plans from obtaining a line of credit/loan from a bank or other financial institution, but assuming the bank is a party in interest, is there consensus about the ability to rely on 408(b)(17) service provider exemption (adequate consideration requiring reasonable interest rate/terms).  And if collateral is required, do parties take the position that posted collateral is not plan assets, similar to collateral posted for derivatives?

Hi, 

The plan termination date is 06/30/2025 however is it okay that the plan details report notes 12/31/2025 as the testing end date? 

If an ERISA-governed retirement plan has access to a recordkeeper’s or third-party administrator’s IRS-preapproved plan documents, what plan provisions or other circumstances would lead a plan’s sponsor to state the plan using an individually-designed document?

(I have no stake in this because my law practice is not, and won’t become, available to write a plan document for an ERISA-governed retirement plan.)

I applied for my lump sum in July since my age 65 100% date was August 1st. Paperwork says 15-20 biz days for distribution. I received confirmation email July 22nd confirming all docs received and in good order.  (Plan is fully funded) I received a call on August 5th I answered thinking they were confirming  my rollover check was being sent out, however I was told my distribution was being delayed until October 15th due to the annual audit.  I asked why I wasn’t told this when they accepted my docs July 22nd and she said she didn’t know why.  Being in the industry for 25 years (mostly in DC) I had never heard of anything so ridiculous, I said that and hung up. I’ve spoken to a few friends in DB biz and they said the same that this isn’t allowed under ERISA.  The company that I worked for IS the plan admin and they have a history of doing whatever they feel like…..can someone please comment and give me an opinion on this? 

A client maintains a separate 401(k) plan for its collectively bargained employees. In some cases, non-bargained employees participate in the plan. My questions are:

(1) does the portion of the plan benefiting non-collectively bargained employees need to satisfy coverage and does that portion of the plan have to either satisfy ADP testing or have a safe harbor design? As a corollary to the question, does the plan need to provide that this portion will be required to satisfy the ADP test or have a safe harbor design?

(2) If the sponsor elects to permissively aggregate the portions of the plan benefiting collectively bargained employees with the portion benefiting non-collectively bargained employees, must the plan provide in all cases that the ADP test or a design-based safe harbor must be satisfied with respect to both collectively bargained employees and non-collectively bargained employees? If so, can the application to collectively bargained employees be made conditional upon the sponsor's election to permissively aggregate both groups?

IRS regulations at 1.410(b)-2(b)(7) provide that a plan benefiting solely collectively bargained employees is treated as satisfying  minimum coverage requirements. If a plan benefits both collectively bargained employees and non-collectively bargained employees, the portion of the plan benefiting collectively bargained employees is treated as a separate plan from that portion of the plan benefiting non-collectively bargained employees. The portion benefiting collectively bargained employees automatically is treated as automatically satisfying the coverage requirements.

Turning to IRS nondiscrimination requirements, Reg. Section 1.401(a)(4)-1(c)(5) provides that the nondiscrimination requirements are treated as satisfied by a collectively bargained plan that automatically satisfies the minimum coverage requirements. As applied to 401(k) plans, generally the regulations follow the rules applicable to the minimum coverage requirements. Specifically, with respect to collectively bargained employees, the regulations permit the portion of a plan benefiting collectively bargained employees to be permissively aggregated with the portion of a plan benefiting non-collectively bargained employees. See Reg. Section 1.401(k)-1(b)(4).