"Does anyone know of any providers that have an election form for participants who want to their employer contributions done as Roth? I know plan documents don't have language for amendments, and software needs to be updated to catch-up, and lots of things are still in flux, so personally I think plans should try to wait, and just live with the existing options for in-plan Roth conversion. But I have a few that are insisting on offering the SECURE2.0 ER contributions as Roth to their participants NOW. It would be helpful to know if anyone has seen any forms yet for this option. Either so I know plans with those providers will have an easier time doing it, or custom forms can be created by looking at some examples. And bonus imaginary internet points if you can actually share the form here."

"Lic established TPA with Association on the market for acquisition. Lic in 25 states."

"Checking a Combo plan CB/DC and came across the following: CB definition of compensation is W-2 and includes all DC definition of compensation is W-2 and includes all (section 125 as well -- not deemed) But Under a separate addendum, DC excludes deemed 125 compensation in Compensation and 415 Compensation (language from the document). So when I check for compensation in DC for allocating PS, Gateway, Top heavy and also for testing, how does the 'deemed 125 compensation' language kick in?"

"So 2024 has already begun and a plan has a pay-period safe harbor match. A client advisor is asking if they can amend the plan to an annual match to eliminate the requirement to pay the match quarterly. (This is not our client and apparently the plan sponsor has been paying the full match after the end of the year.) I told the advisor, I believe this is a prohibited amendment at this point for 2024 and that they need to begin paying no later than the end of the following qtr. I expect everyone will say it's a prohibited amendment for 2024 now even though an annual/true up match could effectively increase the match for some."

"We administer a small 401(k) plan A participant died and the plan sponsor sent us a copy of the participant's most recent Designation of Beneficiary Form. It was signed a few years ago. The Designation of Beneficiary form provided room to name up to two Primary Beneficiaries and up to two Secondary Beneficiaries. The form also indicates that the participant may attach an additional form should they want to name additional beneficiaries and as long as it the form is signed and dated by the participant it will be valid. Now the Designation of Beneficiary Form is clear that the total of all primary beneficiaries share of benefits must total 100% and the total of all secondary beneficiaries must total 100%. This participant was not married and named a friend as primary beneficiary entitled to 50% of the benefits and no other primary beneficiaries entitled to the remaining 50% share (i.e. the total does not equal 100%). Same with the secondary beneficiaries as their share of benefits does not equal 100%. Question: would this be considered an Invalid Beneficiary Designation? And if so, I believe we would follow the standard hierarchy allocation of assets as described in the plan document."

"A plan requires a top-heavy minimum for all non-key employees. The rules state that it only has to be given to non-key employees still employed on the last day of the plan year. The plan has a participant that retired during the plan year that is receiving the matching contribution due to the last day 1,000 requirement being waived for participants that are normal retirement age. The same waiver is for any profit-sharing allocations. They would like to apply this to the top-heavy minimum allocation but I'm being told by our recordkeeping software provider that a requirement to receive a top-heavy minimum requirement is that a person has to be employed. Termination is not waived for any reason for the Top-heavy minimum allocation."

"Husband owns 40% of company A, spouse separately owners 40% of company A. Two other unrelated individuals own 10% each. No exceptions apply, so husband/spouse are considered to own 80% of Company A. Husband and wife each own 20% of Company B, same thing, attribution applies and they owned a combined 40%. The two unrelated individuals from Company A also own 20% each. Third unrelated individual owns the other 20%. When I am adding up my common ownership do I use 40% plus 40% for husband and wife for Company A, or is it 80% and 80%? Is Company B 20% and 20% or 40% and 40%? Same with identical ownership then, are they each 40% or 20%? It has to be the lower percentages, correct, otherwise we exceed 100% for common ownership, which can't be correct, can it?"

"A 401 (k) plan converted to a recordkeeper that doesn't handle plan documents. The Plan is still operating off the volume submitter document of their prior recordkeeper, and the new one is administering the plan in accordance with that document, however it won't be updated or maintained. What should their next step be? They've reached out to two TPAs who won't do it for them because it doesn't comply with theirs. Do they need to get an ERISA attorney to draft one? Their current recordkeeper is telling them they don't need a new plan document to recordkeep the plan so its making it difficult to convince them they need to spend the money on an attorney. Any thoughts or suggestions?"

"Line 14a on the Form 5500 reads 'Does this plan satisfy the coverage and nondiscrimination tests of Code Sections 140(b) and 401(a)(4) by combining this plan with any other plans under the permissive aggregation rules?' Y or N. Our software vendor has as the input question 'Plan satisfies the coverage and nondiscrimination tests of Code sections 410(b) and 401(a)(4).' Y or N. What is the correct answer for a single-employer plan (no aggregation) that does satisfy the coverage and nondiscrimination tests of Code sections 410(b) and 401(a)(4) -- but without aggregation?"