Artie M

I assume that if the former employee does not elect COBRA, they would not get paid or provided any type of subsidy. If that is the case, then there would be no taxable income. Also, even if the COBRA subsidy is provided, the subsidy may not have to be included in income. Generally, when an employer pays COBRA premiums or subsidies directly to a terminated employee and does not control or verify that they actual use the payment for COBRA, the payment be includable as W2 wages. However, if the employer pays the premium or subsidy directly to the carrier or requires the employee to provide proof for reimbursement premiums or subsidies for COBRA coverage that has actually been elected, the payment generally would not need to be included in W2 wages.

From DOL website https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/faqs/efast2-form-5500-processing

Hmmmmm..... The DOL Online calculator is only used for determining earnings on untimely payment of deferrals to the plan trust that violate the DOL rules on when contributions must be made to the ERISA-governed plan. It can be used for full VFCP and must be used if self-corrected under VFCP. Right or wrong, many employers will correct the untimely payment of deferrals to the plan trust, calculating earnings using the DOL Online calculator, and not file anything under VFCP (but still file a 5330 paying the excise tax). We advise clients to do the self-correction notice or file the VFCP if self-correction is not available. Note though there is no requirement to file through VFCP (the "V" stands for "voluntary"). However, even if not using VFCP, plan sponsors still need to correct the late deposits with earnings and file the Form 5330 to pay applicable excise taxes (though they don’t need to file under VFCP). But like you state, without a VFCP filing, the plan has no authority permitting the use of the DOL Online Calculator to determine the lost earnings. Therefore, earnings should be calculated through an alternative method. Also, like you state, most practitioners advise using the IRS earnings method from EPCRS instead. That said, we have also assisted clients with DOL audits where they self-corrected using the DOL Online Calculator without filing under the VFCP and the DOL did not, after some discussions, have an issue with the corrections (even though there was no VFCP filing). We do NOT recommend using this alternative. At the onset, your post assumes there is an operational failure under the plan. We have found that most of the time there is no operational failure for untimely payment of deferrals to a plan trust because most of the plans we work on do not have any language in the plan stating when the contribution is due (other than they must be paid to the plan by the deadline required for the contributions to be deductible). If a plan does not contain the DOL timing rule or an equivalent, there is no operational failure (i.e., there is a DOL failure but not an IRS failure). If there is no operational failure, then no earnings are required for EPCRS. Assuming your plan has an operational failure, then the DOL Online Calculator might be able to be used for EPCRS corrections but only in certain circumstances. Under EPCRS the options for calculating earnings for late contributions are in order of priority (1) apply the actual earnings. This may be impractical or impossible, so EPCRS permits reasonable estimates which leads to .. (2) use the ROR for the best-performing fund in the plan. The IRS permits this because everybody wins using ROR… except perhaps the plan sponsor--using the highest ROR for the entire period (not separately for each plan year) of failure could prove to be very costly… so it may be more reasonable to…. (3) use the weighted average ROR for the plan as a whole. As reasonable estimates go, the plan’s ROR can be a justifiable approach. In other cases, if you must, you come full circle to ….lastly (4) use the DOL’s Online Calculator. EPCRS will allow the use of the DOL’s Online Calculator if the probable difference between the actual earnings and the DOL Online Calculator earnings is insignificant, and the administrative cost of the actual calculation would significantly exceed the probable difference. This sounds counterintuitive since being able to determine that there is an insignificant difference implies that actual earnings can be calculated. Yet EPCRS allows the use of the DOL Calculator, acknowledging that paying the service provider for a precise computation could outweigh the benefit of a small difference. This could happen when a) plans have self-directed brokerage accounts; b) 403(b) plans having participants with separate individual accounts; c) documents/info is unavailable, e.g., plan sponsor is bankrupt or out of business, natural disasters; and/or d) there are changes in service providers, which can all render it impossible to compute actual returns or even ascertain the best-performing fund. If you get to this point, the plan may use the DOL’s Online Calculator. In every other case which is usually the norm, the plan should use one of the other alternatives for determining earnings.

Should be able to. Note the rules cited cover changes to the vesting schedule. Under the proposal, with regard to terminated participants with account balances, the vesting schedule will not be changing. With regard to current participants the vesting schedule will be changing but as stated going from a 6-year vest to a 5-year vest provides better vesting each year. As far as providing an election to retain the old vesting, the regs state: "no election need be provided for any participant whose nonforfeitable percentage under the plan, as amended, at any time cannot be less than such percentage determined without regard to such amendment." Just my thoughts.

Not entirely. I have seen that ... see below from DOL website... this is just part of the notice. Based on her response, she could simply be looking for "lost" retirement benefits.

Yeah, I don't know of any plan sponsors that do this on their own. I know Fidelity does it and I know some other recordkeepers that use third-party vendors such as BenefitEd, Highway Benefits, SoFi at Work, and Candidly to verify student loan payments, etc. for qualified plans.

ERISA §101 Duty of disclosure and reporting states: (a) Summary plan description and information to be furnished to participants and beneficiaries. The administrator of each employee benefit plan shall cause to be furnished in accordance with section 104(b) [29 USC §1024(b) ] to each participant covered under the plan and to each beneficiary who is receiving benefits under the plan Section 3(7) of ERISA, "participant" means “any employee or former employee of an employer, …., who is or may become eligible to receive a benefit … or whose beneficiaries may be eligible to receive any such benefit” ERISA Reg. 2510.3-3(d) provides: (1)(ii) An individual becomes a participant covered under an employee pension plan-- (A) In the case of a plan which provides for employee contributions or defines participation to include employees who have not yet retired, on the earlier of-- (1) The date on which the individual makes a contribution, whether voluntary or mandatory, or (2) The date designated by the plan as the date on which the individual has satisfied the plan's age and service requirements for participation. My understanding of these rules are that once an employee contributes money to the plan they are a participant. Once their funds are distributed from the plan, then they are no longer participants (assuming they are not still eligible to contribute to the plan) and they would not have any beneficiaries eligible for a benefit under the plan. Here, you state they are a “former” employee who has taken a full distribution. Presumably that means they are no longer eligible to contribute to the plan. At the point they take the distribution (and are not eligible) they are no longer required to receive an SPD. However, to the extent they can still make a viable claim for benefits under the plan, it seems an SPD should be provided to a former participant as an SPD almost by definition is a document that would be relevant to their claim. Assuming the applicable plan does not have a statute of limitations provision, I have no knowledge of a state that would provide a statute of limitations that would permit a claim for benefits 20 years after the benefit distribution has been made… but I guess there could be one.... That said, like @Peter Gulia states… you should likely lawyer up

@Connor https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/16/2025-17865/catch-up-contributions

Based on your description, I am not seeing the discrimination issue: "participants whose FICA wages were $150k or less in the prior year can continue to make catch-up contributions on a pre-tax basis, but those whose wages exceed this limit are not permitted to make any catch-ups." So, here, the over $150K participants do not get catch-ups (because they have to be Roth). So they took away something from the more highly compensated.... Under the Code, there cannot be discrimination against NHCEs... no rule says you can't discriminate against HCEs. The discrimination issue comes up if a Plan has participants who do not earn FICA wages and they are HCEs for nondiscrimination testing but not highly paid individuals for Roth catch-up purposes. In that situation HCEs who are not HPIs might be able get catch-ups but some NHCE who are HPIs could not get catchups. That is a very specific set of circumstances. This set of circumstances is addressed in the regs that provide a safe harbor if those HCEs who are not HPIs are not eligible for catch-ups either. If you don't use the safe harbor the Plan would need to do BRF testing (and may or may not fail it). Those same regs say you can design a plan permitting catch-ups but does not permit Roths. The communications piece you read may be meant for the general population and not for a plan with this specific set of facts. Maybe I am misunderstanding the query....

Thanks, Brian

Employer maintains an FSA plan that provides for a grace period. Calendar year plan. Regs state that if it has a grace period it cannot also provide for a carryover. The Regs state that it can be amended prior to end of year to change. So, under the Regs, a calendar year plan permitting a grace period in 2026 relating to 2025 could be amended to instead use a carryover to 2026 of unused 2025 health FSA amounts (as limited) if amended by December 31, 2025. I didn't think you could do it this late but the Regs state differently. However, Notice 2013-71 states "If a plan has provided for a grace period and is being amended to add a carryover provision, the plan must also be amended to eliminate the grace period provision by no later than the end of the plan year from which amounts may be carried over. The ability to eliminate a grace period provision previously adopted for the plan year in which the amendment is adopted may be subject to non-Code legal constraints." Can someone expand on what "subject to non-Code legal constraints" means? I have some thoughts but would like to hear from others.

I think you need to be more specific on what type of correspondence you are referring to. If it is a document that relates to a filing the ERISA statutory retention period is 6 years (though we normally advise 8 years). If it is a document that relates to determining participant's benefit which is due or may become due, there is no set period (we recommend holding it until at least 3 years after final distribution). One big warning...do not rely on prior record keepers to retain your documents.

Though the listed authorities usually come out with estimates prior to the IRS formal release and their estimates are usually on point, they all still state they are estimates. Not sure when the IRS guidance will come out due to the government shutdown

I am not sure we have enough facts to answer your question. Is this person still working at the law firm in 2025--presumably so or there doesn't seem to be an issue. Are you asking whether the switch from partner status in one year to non-partner status the following year affects or doesn't affect the start of their RMDs? I mean for retirement plan purposes, a self-employed individual (i.e., a person who has earned income for a tax year) is treated as an employee. See 401(c)(1). Also, no 5% issue. If they are still working at the law firm in 2025 with no ownership then I take that to mean they are providing services as a non-partner (a person could be a non-equity partner, i.e., no ownership, and still be a treated as a self-employed partner if they receive a share of the firm's income). A question then is whether they are providing services as an employee or as an independent contractor. Another is whether the plan has a definition of "retires" with regard to partners. Assuming they haven't retired for purposes of this query, if they are providing services to the law firm as an employee, seems like they would not be required to take a distribution simply because they have not retired (also assumes that the plan uses both the "age 73" and the "later of" rule). Otherwise, if they are providing services as an independent contractor (or not providing services at all) then it seems they would be required to take a distribution by 4/1/2026. Sorry if I am being dense or reading more into this than is necessary (overly anal)...

This can be done. Your company should put all the language it can in the service agreement stating the limits of its activities with regard to an ERISA plan and must ensure that it doesn’t do anything that goes past those limits. The service agreement, at a minimum, should state that the company does not provide specific investment recommendations to a plan on a regular, defined basis under a written agreement for compensation. The service agreement should explicitly state the company is not acting as an investment advisor and is not providing investment recommendations. It should state that it only provides factual information or administrative services. The company should carefully document its activities to show a lack of discretionary investment advice. The company should merely provide “access” to investments. It shouldn’t state something like this is the standardized slate we offer to plans…. They should likely frame this more as here is a slate of investments that we have seen ERISA plans utilize… it makes no recommendations regarding the appropriateness of an investment for an ERISA plan… tell the client to consult their own financial and investment advisors as to whether any investment is a prudent and proper investment for their plan…. All investment decisions, whether they are obtained through your company’s service agreement or through another provider, are the decisions of the plan sponsor. Nothing in your communications should even allude to or be able to be interpreted that any determination has been made by your company as to whether the offered investments are appropriate for any ERISA plan (just relay the fact that ERISA plans utilize them). The company can provide facts concerning the investments, prospectuses etc. This means it can provide educational materials about investment options in general and concepts but it cannot communicate anything that even appears to be recommending particular funds. Not advice, stream of thoughts here...