"Section III.G of Notice 2008-113 states that, in short, an 'insider' is a director or officer of the service recipient or owns more than 10% of the service recipient as determined under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Additionally, for purposes of the Notice, it is determined 'without regard to whether the service recipient has any class of equity securities registered under Section 12 of such Act.' Seems pretty straightforward to me that this last provision is meant to cover as insiders those who aren't in publicly traded companies (and therefore making certain corrections under the Notice unavailable due to an insider being involved). I'm working with a nongovernmental tax exempt entity on a failure to make a timely payment under a 457(f) plan in 2023 to a C-Suite executive. The executive is an officer and therefore certainly looks like an insider even though the entity could not under any circumstances have registered securities, and in fact has no ownership at all. Any way to get around the idea that this executive is an insider for purposes of Notice 2008-113?"

"It is my understanding that for a person to be considered an HCE the ownership level is at 5%, and for a person to be considered a key employee the threshold is at 'more than 5%'. So, if for a two-person partnership, setting up the ownership level at 5.01% and 94.99% avoids both the non-discrim and top-heavy tests. Am I correct?"

"Does the tax relief provided in TX-2024-13 for taxpayers in various counties in Texas apply to the PCORI Fee? The relief gives taxpayers until November 1, 2024 to file and make tax payments. The relief includes Excise Tax Returns normally due on April 30, July 31... I don't see the PCORI mentioned specifically and can't find any guidance or opinion on the matter but it seems like the position could be taken that for taxpayers in the specific Texas counties have until Nov 1, 2024 to file and make the 7/31/24 payment. Looking for other thoughts or even specific guidance on this question."

"If the employer is refusing to make the 3% non-elective safe harbor, what is the penalty or other issues?"

"A 401k plan was established effective January 1, 2023, and the client opted at the time the plan was being established to wait until January 1, 2025 to add the mandatory automatic enrollment provisions to the plan. Question: When the plan is amended effective January 1, 2025 to add the mandatory automatic enrollment provisions to the plan, which participants must be included in the automatic enrollment provisions? Does it need to be applied to all who are plan participants as of January 1, 2025 as well as all future plan participants, or can it just be applied to those who first become participants on or after January 1, 2025?"

"Until recently, many employee-benefits lawyers advised an employer not to provide an automatic-contribution arrangement. Why? Because an employer might administer the arrangement imperfectly, sometimes missing some people, and that would call for corrections and expense. Have law changes made those worries smaller? Are the exposures smaller? Are the fixes less expensive? Here's why I'm thinking about this: A charity, unadvised until now, provides an automatic-contribution arrangement for its Section 403(b) plan. The default is 3% of pay, with yearly increases until 6% of pay. I believe the charity will have lapses and errors that result in failing to start elective deferrals for people to be auto-enrolled. I believe the charity is unable to design and implement work methods to avoid inevitable lapses and errors. The automatic-contribution arrangement is not needed to meet any coverage or nondiscrimination rule. Internal Revenue Code Section 414A does not require an automatic-contribution arrangement because the plan's elective-deferral arrangement was established before December 29, 2022. Should the plan sponsor continue, or get rid of, the automatic-contribution arrangement? If you suggest keeping the arrangement, what can I say about why the charity's exposure to corrections is only a small risk?"