RatherBeGolfing

There are clients with 30 employees who would screw up auto enrollment, I don't think its a size issue. I have had auto enroll clients with more than 1,000 employees and lots of turnover handle them just fine, with an issue here or there. And you know, if you need cash to pay for the ambulance for that hangnail, we have a provision for that in Secure 2.0 as well

I dont think you can carve the LTPTs out the way you describe. I also don't think it will be that big of an issue for the vast majority of plans, so amendments to keep them out will be rare. The biggest issue is if you have enough of LTPTs that you have to count as participants for 5500 purposes, you may become a large filer.

I mostly agree with you, other than fundamentally broken and unfixable. Call me an optimist, but it is entirely possible to provide fully compliant plans at a competitive cost, even if the industry as a whole has widespread noncompliance. I stress simple design for simple goals, do not overcomplicate things. As for mandatory contributions, I think that is where we are ultimately heading, but it will be both EE and ER. I think we will see mandatory plans with mandatory contributions in the next decade.

Ill retire somewhere around Cycle 10 restatements...

I think there is some truth to that. But I also think that it was inevitable when you look at what the politicians want to accomplish with their policy changes. is there an alternative?

I actually really like more than a few of the provisions in S2.0. Implementation is going to be a nightmare for many of these provisions though. I started having the " whoa there cowboy, while the law allows for it, there are lots of moving parts and we need guidance before we can..." conversations on 12/29/2022...

We are missing information, that's for sure. The problem with SDBA as a TPA is that you have to rely on a trustee or sometimes participant to act.

Derrins first post-passing S2.0 webinar is later today, will be interesting to hear what he says. Personally, I think we will need IRS guidance to clear up how this section will work in practice.

This is the only reasonable way this provision can work. If left completely to Employer discretion, the Employees will get stuck with the tax liability without having a say. That said, I think you can reasonably read the amended language as simply allowing match and NEC as contributions that may be made as Roth, without the election wording from the first part of the sentence.

Off course!

Exclude them as temporary employees? Something like employees hired on a non-permanent basis. Maybe with a failsafe to let them in if they complete a year of service?

Off course! But I doubt we will have guidance before 2024...

415 limit of $334.25? ((2/365)*$61,000)

It is probably technically possible, or at least it is too late in the day to think of a reason that would explicitly prohibit it. That said, it seems like a lot of trouble just to delay the funding deadline of a sole prop.

I don't disagree with you, but I think this was a step they weren't willing to take to achieve it said goal. I'm also not sure that extending TH exemption this way would necessarily achieve the other policy objectives. It would allow employers to let some people defer earlier without having to contribute to them. But would it lead to increased savings overall? Would the hypothetical increase in deferrals be more than the required employer contributions for plans that would not have to contribute TH minimum? I doubt it. Wild speculation: We have mandatory autoenrollment in this bill. It didn't go as far as other proposals which mandated a plan or payroll deduction IRA for all employers of a certain size. I don't think that will last long, the mandate will be back, and many employers will not have the ability to say "if I cant do this, I wont offer a plan at all".

I do as well. Especially when you need to explain when it was determined and who has to get a contribution.

We are on the same page. Isn't this sort of the point though? If you design your plan a certain way to minimize the expense of employer contributions to the staff and the key employees sit on most of the assets, you have to provide a minimum to the non-key.

I agree, the summary says separate top heavy testing, while the language in the language in the act simply says that otherwise excludable employees may be excluded while determining if 416(c)(2) has been satisfied. 416(c)(2)(A) says that you meet the requirements for a TH plan if each participant who is a non-key gets an employer contribution of not less than 3% 416(c)(2)(B)says that the percentage in (A) for any year shall not exceed the percentage of contributions made to the key employee with highest percentage for the year. The language in the act is pretty clear, if you are subject to TH minimum contributions, you don't have to give it to otherwise excludable employees. Nothing in the act discusses separate TH testing. I also think that the industry (practitioners and regulators) does a poor job of explaining these rules and the exceptions to participants. This is often due to paraphrasing very technical language into something more understandable by to the average participant. Even the IRS website has language like "There's no need to do top-heavy testing for a safe harbor 401(k) that receives only elective deferrals and safe harbor minimum contributions." I think we need to draw a very distinct line between top heavy testing (is the plan TH or not) and meeting the required minimum if you are TH.

Can you explain why you think the language in Act may not accomplish what you agree appear to be the congressional intent? Is it the actual language or the IRS prior interpretation?

The current continuing resolution expires 12/30/22, so before the CR expires. While it passed both house and senate, it can take time to get 5000 pages ready for signature.

It is a legit email, I called and confirmed it with a rep at EFAST. And we just had our mandatory cyber security training....

For S2.0 the provisions came from three different house and senate bills. I believe the increased catch up was included in two out of three bills, but they used different years and different number of years. The final provision was likely a combination of a compromise between house/senate bills and cost of the provision.

Unless there's something else we don't know about, I would be optimistic. For one, they are applying the post SECURE Act penalty to 2013-2015, which is wrong. It also appears that you filed for relief prior to getting the CP283, so you should be eligible to correct those years.

@austin3515 you can speak to them without the POA, they just cant speak to you. You can give them proof of mailing without the POA, they will record it / fix it, they just wont give you any information.

Ok, I wouldn't have a problem delivering the notice on 12/20. It has to be delivered a reasonable period prior to the start of the plan year, based on facts and circumstances. 90-30 days is deemed to be reasonable. So in your case, if they can deliver it to participants and they have an opportunity to make/change elections prior to the start of the year, I would argue it is reasonable period prior to the start of the plan year. If it is late (after the start of the plan year) check the link above. You have to see if it impacted some ones opportunity to make contributions and may have to correct for that. Other than that, you maintain SH status.