austin3515

Oh I have a definition of fringe that I am a big fan of: "Compensation that has nothing to do with how much you work or how well you work."

The relevant text is: "...an employer amends a...profit-sharing...plan to increase benefits accrued under the plan...". I agree, and the question is really how can you even define that text in the context of Discretionary allocations?

I was not aware of this new provision. I am curious, what if the purpose of the amendment is to reduce how much you need to contribute to the plan to get testing to pass? Is that a "Retroactive plan amendments that increase benefit accruals"? I think it would be hard to argue yes... One option that I have used before is to set up a whole new profit sharing plan. if you set up a new plan under the new retroactive provisions in SECURE 1.0, and then merge it in, you have a clean slate for plan design. I have vetted this one through proper channels... Probably excessive in most cases but I have used it twice before for the really significant scenarios. You can merge the new plan into the original one pretty quickly without a permanence issue because the new plan will be "part" of the old plan. It is not being terminated.

Note that these payroll companies have already rolled things out to their clients. If ADP programmed their system to do mandatory Roth 1/1/2026 and there is a delay, that means ADP has to spend REAL MONEY to: a) Reprogram their system to not implement Mandatory Roth b) Reprogram their system AGAIN to turn it back on. It's easy to assume that those things are not a big deal, but I've heard stories that these types of changes are monumental. Not to mention the time and energy required to train clients and explain all of this.

Could you imagine you run ADP, spend thousands of hours and millions of dollars to get something up and running and then have the feds get cold feet and you have to spend even more money? I'll tell ya if I was the judge I would have a very sympathetic ear. Irresponsible governance has a hard dollar cost. ADP knows to the penny what it's spending on all of this.

Just saying if I was one of the 5 payroll companies named above who collectively probably process 85% of all payroll based on headcount for the US I would band together and say "tough _______ we're moving ahead." Programming and unprogramming and reprogramming is so ludicrous that a ludicrous response is 100% reasonable.

LOL. Such a funny conversation explaining to people who get these insane penalties that it's because of 10 year budget scoring and trying to make it budget neutral on a spreadsheet, even though they know the penalties will never be assessed.

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

I think the employer is required to add it to the w2. I think I read that somehwere.

I read the statutes for SECURE 2.0 but not for payroll matters, LOL. And my real point in mentioning is on behalf of John Doe manufacturing employee working 20 hours of OT per week, including double time on weekends and triple time on holidays, and coming to find out this is a fraction of what it was billed as. "We're not taxing overtime" is what I heard. John Doe did not read the statute, and if he just caught the headlines, this was never mentioned (and I probably watch and read more news then average American, though admittedly others read far more than I do).

I did see that the IRS actually did publish a draft W-4 on which employees can estimate their qualifying tips and overtime to adjust their withholding. Additional research told me that as a technicality, amending the W-4 in this way does not affect the legal definition of wages for withholding--only a change to 3401(a) itself would do that. So the W-4 just allows employees to request lower withholding but does not exclude qualifying tips and overtime from the definition. I suppose 3401a could be viewed as a starting point, from which the employee can make certain adjustments. Anyway, that is what I learned from google and AI. Curious if anyone can validate. Were you all aware that when they said "overtime is tax free" they meant just the "half" in "time and a half"? So for example, if the pay is $10 an hour, $15 for over-time, it is just the $5 extra that is eligible for the deduction. I did not realize that. I'll bet there are millions of hourly employees who did not realize that. No one ever clarified (that I ever heard), and now the exclusion from income is 1/3 of what was communicated. Anyway, I definitely had no idea so figured I would say something to you guys!

If a plan uses the W-2 definition of compensation, then it is pretty clear that tips and overtime are included in Box 1 of W-2 and thus the exclusion of overtime and tips will not affect comp. But what about if the definition of comp is based income for purposes of withhdoling? If the IRS clarifies that qualifying tips and overtime are not subject to withholding, won't that create a problem? I am hearing that the IRS may do just that for 2026. I haven't seen anything written about this so I am very curious...

its funny because we use Relius but we've always used the 3 months of service and not worried about the difference. We're not calculating year end contriubtions for these plans. These are the larger plans that are doing pay-period match calculations, sans true-up. That's a general rule of course, never say never. If participant counts are off here and there that's not something I would worry about.

Unfortunately the months of service field on their system is a drop down where you have to pick a number. Our documents person came up with this though 1) Pick 3 months of service elapsed time for eligibility. 2) In the custom language addendum enter the following (paraphrasing, we are being more specific but hey trade secret!): For purposes of determining eligibility 3 months of service means 90 days of service. 3) In the SPD there is a custom language module where you can specify text that appears at the beginning of the Eligibility section before anything else ("Top"). In that custom language field you can type: "The term 3 months of service as used below shall mean 90 days of service." Still clunky but better than the fail safe language which will confuse anyone who reads it (because the obvious assumption will be that it is there because it is relevant).

uggh my bad. I think you are referring to my lack of consistency. It seems to be either 60 or 90 with the clients who are using this convention (or 30 of course). In paragraph e. (which is ____months of elapsed time) we enter the following exactly: “90 days of service –approximately 3 (three)” Then the SPD and the AA both say “90 days of service – approximately 3 (three) months of service” and the failsafe eligibility language won’t display.

I think I have a best possible solution. Not perfect, but ok and certainly better than what I'm getting today. In paragraph e. (which is ____months of elapsed time) we enter the following exactly: “90 days of service –approximately 2 (two)” Then the SPD and the AA both say “60 days of service – approximately 2 (two) months of service” and the failsafe eligibility language won’t display. I think that will work... Like I said not perfect, but good enough.

They said too bad so sad edit the spd in Word(non starter because we will never be able to edit every time we do a new amendment). Very disappointing. Tons of clients use days instead of months. No, the fail safe would never apply but the client is annoyed because the sentence makes no sense in the context. It’s literally the next sentence after “you’re eligible after 60 days.” Super disappointing.

We're asking them too 👍

We use FT Williams for plan documents (new to us) and we have a client who uses 60 days of service and not two months. We cannot find a good way to fit that in the document. IF we use the "Other" field, FT automatically includes the failsafe eligibiility language. It also does not give us the opportunity to elect Elapsed Time for eligibility. It seems as though the only way of electing elapsed time is to use something already hardcoded for months. And this employer has had the 60 days eligibility for 1,000+ employees for years so, no, they will not change to 2 months 🤣 Any suggestions appreciated!

The FT William pre-approved document allows us to select whether the Investment Fiduciary will be if not the Trustee. Has anyone ever seen this used to name someone other than the Trustee (my plan does not have a directed trustee). It looks like the default investment fiduciary is the plan sponsor. That doesn;t seem normal though because the norm is for the trustee to sign off on investment changes for example.

Oh well sure if there is someone who doesn't know what they are doing you can get into trouble. What I find shocking is that lawyers who do mergers and acquisitions for a living will frequently just ignore this topic altogether. I get it, there are a lot of moving pieces but bring in an ERISA attorney to focus on this (I mean if there isn't a solid TPA of course!).

For what? This is a stock sale, the have the 410b6C transition, and the entity has not yet adopted the Plan?

I guess our experiences are quite different. In my world, the acquired entity is rarely able to participate immediately in buyers plan. Often times the employees are told of the acquisition immediately prior to the acquisition (doesn't leave much time to enroll and make investment elections, even if the RK was able to get that new entity set up in time). And the administrative hurdles of adding new entities as participating employers means generally a month is lighting speed to get them onboarded (Census data, notices, banking info). These things take time in my world and only rarely take place immediately after the acquisition (Even if the sellers plan is terminated). And I am familiar with puts and 5 annual installments and the like, and I understand all of that. But this is an eye opener that literally no one sees what I am doing as the least bit productive or helpful. I'll do some more research.

I can't figure out where we are all getting out of line here. We all agree that the merger agreement controls. I am writing the merger agreement. For our documents, you just enter the merger effective date in the participating employer agreement (Corbel Prototype). What I am asking about is language in the effective date for the merger agreement and whether I can just say "coincident with receipt of the wire transfer." Everything you guys are saying I agree with. I definitely think it is me who is missing something here...

Is the bottom line here, what I want to do makes no sense? That's the message I am getting. If this makes no sense I'd be curious to here why this approach makes no sense. It doesn;t sound unreasonable to me.