RatherBeGolfing

Its likely that no notice is required at all for the SHNEC, so really the only issue is that some participants may have changed their elections for 1/1/26 to get the full match. I could see an argument that they should have a reasonable time to change it less if they want to, but I don't think that is a facts and circumstances argument against the SHNEC. They may defer more in the first pay period than they would have if they had not received a SHN with 4% match. From a compliance perspective, I think they are ok. They may have some upset employees/participants, though.

Agreed. And most documents say that the SHNEC is at least 3%, so you may be able to do 4% for 2026 and 3% for 2027 without the need for amendment.

Editing my initial answer since I misread the question . You are asking if you can amend the plan by 12/31/2025 for a 2026 change from SHM to SHNE? Technically, you can make the change at any point before the plan year starts. A question that could be asked is whether participants will have a reasonable time to make changes to their elections after you amend, and if they are negatively impacted by the change if they do not have reasonable time to change their elections. I think you are fine since you are providing the SHNEC in place of the SHM and participants will not miss out on any of the employer contributions even if they do not have enough time to change their elections for the first payroll. It would be different if you went from 3% SHNEC to 4% match and a participant did not have time to change their election to receive the full 4% match.

Happy Holidays from sunny Florida!

I may or may not have seen some of these manually signed documents due to "issues with electronic signature software" and other similar explanations.

I actually liked Lotus back in the day 🤣.

Congrats @Belgarath!!! You are coming back to discuss SECURE 3.0 with us just for fun though, right? Right? Bueller???

Happy Thanksgiving everyone! I hope you all get to enjoy time with family, a good meal, and of course, some football! I'm not working tomorrow, but we have a lot of people out on Friday so that is my day to catch up on stuff without too much interruption.

In addition to what @Paul I said, I don't think the provider has to be local unless you actually require local services. Data security should be at the top of the list for your provider requirements. Its a plus if they have other TPA clients and understand industry needs. For example, what type of support they provide outside of standard hours, and how could this impact you during busy season / filing deadlines.

@S Derrin Watson, you have been a trusted advisor, teacher, lecturer, and author for my entire career in the industry. I can easily say that you, @Ilene Ferenczy, and Sal have shaped me into the practitioner I am today. I wish you the best as you start this new chapter of your life!

We see this way too often, and have started defaulting to completing the work for the client unless the prior provider affirm that they will do it and provide a timeline for the work so that we can make sure it gets done. No matter who is responsible, the client wont be happy when they have to pay penalties a year or two later. It takes more time to do damage control, so we have opted to do it during the takeover. About 30-40% of our takeovers come from MEP/PEP providers, and they are usually the better ones to work with (with some notable exceptions) As for recourse, there is no easy answer. Is there a service agreement? What is in the service agreement? Does it spell out the responsibilities of each party? Does it detail the fees, how it will be billed, and what happens when services are terminated? Unless your takeovers come from pretty much the same place, every situation is going to be different. Are you having a hard time getting information from prior providers? We have noticed that there are a few big providers (who will remain nameless) that are getting more and more difficult to work with during the takeover process.

Changes are unlikely. We got the new limits late, there is really no time for changes. The statute is unclear, so the IRS decision to keep it at $11,250 is a reasonable interpretation. More likely outcome is that clarification is sought over the next year so that we can have confidence in the COLA next year.

IRS has confirmed it is staying at $11,250...

Same. We are doing more and more elapsed time to get away from LTPTE issues. We also have more employers with little to no service requirements. This isn't as cost-prohibitive as it once was with the new participant count methodology, top-heavy relief, affordable MEP/PEP solutions, etc. FWIW, I think the days of excluding employees from plans are numbered. Our legislators and regulators will continue to close the retirement plan coverage gap, which means that our plans will need to be more inclusive.

$12,000 is what seems logical, but... The plain language of 414(v)(2)(E)(i)(II) says 150% of the amount in effect for 2024, which would be $11,250.