Message Boards Digest

September 19, 2023

Here are the most recently added topics on the BenefitsLink® Message Boards:

M Norton created a topic in SEP, SARSEP and SIMPLE Plans


"Secure Act 2.0 contains provisions for Roth contributions to SIMPLE IRAs beginning 2023. Has anyone seen any documents that offer that option? I have looked at the IRS website at forms 5304-SIMPLE (Rev. March 2012) and 5305-SIMPLE (Rev March 2002). Neither has been updated to provide for Roth. Is that really an option if the federal forms don't offer it? I am working on preparing notices to clients that sponsor SIMPLE plans and want to make sure I cover the options available."

2 replies so far   |    Click Here to Add a Reply

ERISApedia -- Announcing: The Plan Distribution eSource

Sponsored by ERISApedia
The Plan Distribution eSource, written by S. Derrin Watson, J.D addresses distributions extensively. An entire chapter explains the maze of 1099-R reporting. Numerous practical examples. For more information, please contact

ERISAGal created a topic in 403(b) Plans, Accounts or Annuities

Recharacterization of ACP Test Failures to After-Tax in a 403(b) Plan?

"Is it possible to take an HCE's ACP testing refund and have it recharacterized to an after-tax 'bucket' within a 403b plan? I would imagine the plan would need to issue a 1099R reporting the taxable event for the required distribution amount."

No replies yet   |    Click Here to Add a Reply

Peter Gulia created a topic in Distributions and Loans, Other than QDROs

Should the Different Ways for a Participant to Get Money Be on the Same Claim Form?

"If (for 2024) a Section 401(k), Section 403(b), or governmental Section 457(b) plan provides many kinds of distributions such a plan may provide without tax-disqualifying the plan, a participant might face a choice of two or more kinds of distributions allowed on the same set of facts.... Each kind of distribution might invoke advantages and disadvantages all or some of which would not result from another of the kinds that could be taken in the same set of facts.... [If] a plan's administration uses a distinct claim form for each kind of distribution, a severed participant might reflexively use the form for a 'normal' distribution, and so might miss an opportunity to claim a different kind of distribution with different features. Or a before-severance participant might reflexively use the hardship form, perhaps missing an opportunity to consider another claim that would preserve advantages a hardship distribution lacks.... Should a plan's administrator -- practically, its recordkeeper or third-party administrator -- put all the available kinds of distribution on one claim form? Why or why not? What would be the advantages? What would be the disadvantages or difficulties? If you think its unwise or impractical to put all or many kinds of distribution on one claim form, what methods would you suggest to inform a participant about one's opportunity to consider different kinds?"

2 replies so far   |    Click Here to Add a Reply

Chaz created a topic in Health Plans (Including ACA, COBRA, HIPAA)

Gag Clause Attestation Questions

"The CAA requires, among other things, that a group health plan attest, by December 31, 2023, that it 'will not enter into an agreement, and has not, subsequent to December 27, 2020, entered into an agreement' with a service provider that contains a gag clause. A covered health plan entered into a master services agreement with a carrier (say, Blue Cross) in 2010 that contains an offending gag clause. The master agreement has not been amended since originally executed, except that the financial terms of the agreement change each year (including in 2021, 2022, and 2023), subject to the parties' agreement on such revised terms. The parties have agreed each year to the subsequently changed financial terms Two questions: [1] Do the revised financial terms mean that the services agreement has been amended such that the plan has entered into an agreement after December 27, 2020, so that the plan cannot make the attestation? Or can the plan make the attestation because the original agreement predates the effective date of the gag rule requirement? [2] If the answer to the first question is that the plan cannot make the attestation due to the changes in financial terms, can an amendment retroactively removing the offending clause even fix the situation? (Because the plan has, in effect, 'entered in an agreement' that contains a gag clause and amending the agreement, even retroactively, doesn't really change that.)"

1 reply so far   |    Click Here to Add a Reply

Here are the most recently posted jobs on, a service of BenefitsLink:

View job as 3(16) Retirement Plan Consultant

3(16) Retirement Plan Consultant  View details

EGPS, Inc.

View job as 3(16) Retirement Plan Consultant for EGPS, Inc.
►View More Jobs

►Post a Job

►Get Instant Job Alerts, Inc.
56 Creeksong Road
Whittier NC 28789
(407) 644-4146

Lois Baker, J.D., President
David Rhett Baker, J.D., Editor and Publisher

Copyright 2023, Inc. All materials contained in this mailing are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of, Inc., or in the case of third party materials, the owner of those materials. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notices from copies of the content.

Links to web sites other than and are offered as a service to our readers; we were not involved in their production and are not responsible for their content.

Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy