"Does SECURE 2.0 Mandatory Roth Catch-up Section 603 apply to the 403(b) special 15 year of service catch-up rules? I have not read anything that says it doesn't, but haven't specifically seen or heard anything that says it does. Any reason why the new rules would not apply to the special 15 year catch-up? edit: is the answer because SECURE 2.0 amends 414(v) and the 15 year special catch-ups are not part of 414(v); therefore, 603 does not apply to special catch-ups? Thanks"

[Sponsored]

Solving for new comparability allocations for corporations and partnerships is simple with ASC BUDGET, a module in the ASC DC/401(k) System. See how it works!

"Below is an excerpt from some form QDRO Procedures (Relius), which is part of a Retirement Plan. I am trying to understand how this provision is compliant with ERISA: Quote 1. Suspension of Participant distributions or loans. If the Plan Administrator is on notice (verbal or written) regarding a pending domestic relations action (e.g., a divorce) and has a reasonable belief the participant's account may become subject to a QDRO, the Plan Administrator may suspend processing the participant's distribution or loan requests pending resolution. 2. Removing hold on the account. After placing a hold on the account, the Plan Administrator should notify the participant of the hold on the account. In order to remove the hold, the Plan Administrator should request the Participant to provide written confirmation that a court will not issue a QDRO with respect to the account; such as a property settlement agreement awarding the entire account to the Participant. Below are the some of the problems that I see with this provision. Am I missing something? 1. Freezing a Participant’s Account Based on Mere Knowledge of a Divorce (Without a DRO) • ERISA’s QDRO Rules (ERISA § 206(d)(3)): ERISA’s anti-alienation provisions generally prohibit plans from restricting a participant’s rights to their benefits unless a valid DRO is received and under review for qualification as a QDRO. • DOL Advisory Opinion 2002-03A: The Department of Labor (DOL) has stated that a plan administrator may suspend distributions only when there is a pending domestic relations order that is being reviewed to determine whether it qualifies as a QDRO. • ERISA and DOL Guidance: Under ERISA § 206(d)(3) and Internal Revenue Code § 414(p), a plan administrator may place a temporary hold on distributions IF there is notice of a pending domestic relations order (DRO) that could become a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). • The phrase "on notice (verbal or written)" is problematic. While a plan administrator may place a hold upon receipt of a DRO, simply having a "reasonable belief" that an account may be subject to a QDRO (without an actual DRO) could be seen as an impermissible restriction on a participant’s rights. • DOL guidance (Advisory Opinion 2002-03A) suggests that a temporary hold is allowed only if there is an actual pending domestic relations order and it is being reviewed for qualification as a QDRO. 2. Placing a Hold Based on "Reasonable Belief" That the Account "May Be" Subject to a DRO • Allows a hold solely because the plan hears of a pending divorce, even if no DRO exists. This creates an impermissible restriction on the participant’s rights because ERISA does not authorize a plan to preemptively place a hold based on speculation that a QDRO may be issued. • Problems with "Reasonable Belief" Standard: o The language allows the Plan Administrator to act based on a subjective belief that the account "may become" subject to a DRO. o This exceeds the authority provided under ERISA, as there is no legal basis to restrict a participant’s account based on speculation or indirect information. o It also creates potential fiduciary risks, as the administrator might inconsistently apply this standard or unfairly restrict a participant’s access to their benefits. 3. Problems With the Release of the Hold • Requiring a participant to provide written confirmation that a court will not issue a QDRO may go beyond ERISA’s requirements. • The burden is on the Plan Administrator to determine whether a QDRO exists, not on the participant to prove that a QDRO will not be issued. • A participant may not be able to obtain such confirmation, as courts do not typically issue "non-QDRO" determinations. • Instead of requiring a participant to provide a property settlement agreement or written confirmation, the Plan Administrator should instead remove the hold after a reasonable time period (e.g., 18 months per ERISA § 206(d)(3)(H)) unless an actual DRO is received. • The Plan Administrator could also release the hold if there is written confirmation from both parties that no DRO will be submitted."

"I'm working on testing a plan right now. It's a newcomp / cross-tested plan. With our proposed profit sharing to max out the owner, it fails general nondiscrimination testing. I'm in over my head here with the correction methods for this; My understanding of the failsafe coverage provision is that, if elected, it provides a rigid method for who to allocate contributions to in order to pass testing, and if NOT elected, an 11g amendment must be made in order to pass testing. That said, the plan document says that all employer contributions are discretionary... Can they allocate money to employees otherwise ineligible for profit sharing because it's discretionary? Another note: Who needs to recieve a 5% gateway allocation in order to use cross-testing? My instinct would be that it's only employees eligible for profit sharing, however our testing software seems intent on putting anybody eligible for the plan as a whole (including people eligible for deferral but not profit sharing) on the minimum allocation gateway test."

"Plan was proposed to be terminated in a standard termination but company since filed for a bankruptcy. Per applicable regs, lump sums of more than $7,000 are no longer permitted, but plan can pay out lump sum benefits of less than $7,000. If a participant has more than $7,000 in their benefit account, but requests a lump sum payment and is willing to forfeit anything in excess of $7,000, can the plan sponsor pay out that lesser amount?"

"Is the Section 310 change to top heavy minimums (don't have to give them to participants who are otherwise excludable) an option, or is it just The Way It Is? I'm not seeing a clear answer; too much "may" and not enough "will" or "must". I'm looking at a plan with immediate eligibility for deferrals but YOS/semi-annual entry for SHNEC and PS, and is top heavy. Before, I would warn them that yes, you are saving the 3% as safe harbor in the first year or so you hire someone, but you'll have to give them 3% as top heavy, but they liked the vesting aspect of that so refused to change. Now... are the new hires right out entirely (there is no PS this year)? Or is this something that they will get to make a decision on? Thanks."

"Just thinking out loud here, trying to figure out if my logic is okay.... CB plan is going to cut the contribution credit for the two principals for 2025, which they accrue upon 1000 hours of service. Plan is getting its restatement for Cycle 3 in the next couple of weeks. Typically we'd have the restated doc effective 1/1/25. That date is, of course, before they'll get a 204(h) notice. I'm torn between: a) So what - give them the 204(h) notice now, so that they get 15 days warning that their benefit rate will drop. If they happen to hit the 1000 hour mark in the middle of March, then they'd be prohibited from the cutback in the formula and still get their old percentage of pay. b) Make the Cycle 3 doc effective March 31, 2025, instead of 1/1/25. That way they definitely get the notice before the effective date of the drop. Obviously (b) is okay, but (a) seems like it could potentially still be okay and if it does, at least there's not some kind of weird rando date in the plan's history. Thoughts? --bri"

"We set up a 401(k) plan with a 1/1/2019 effective date, first deferral was made in 2020 and according to the TPA, no 5500s have ever been done. File initial return with all $0?"

"So I just retired - 7 months ago - I have a QDRO from my 1st marriage - to ensure my retirement didn't get held up I sent a copy of my Divorce decree and QDRO to OPM - I just got my OPM booklet explaining my benefits and all that jazz about my annuity payment but what I didn't see is the explanation part about the payment portion to my ex. Since I've sent everything to OPM and they have it, I feel like I've done everything I need to do and if my ex wants to find out why he isn't getting anything it's up to him to contact OPM and ask. Any pointers?"

"A non-spouse inherits an IRA and will pay the taxes. After taxes, can they roll into a Roth IRA? Thanks"

"Never a dull moment Company X had a proposal. Did not confirm that they wanted the plan. In the meantime, opened an account in 2024 without a document, made a deposit, deducted for 2023. No 5500 filing, no SB, no AFTAP, do not know if PBGC. Now time for 2024 contributions/deductions. How do you correct this?"

"Company A buys Company B in a stock sale. Company A's plan has no provisions for employer contributions. Company B's plan has a discretionary match subject to a vesting schedule. Company B's plan is to be merged into Company A's plan. Under Company B, a participant is 60% vested under a 6-year graded schedule. When the plan's are merged Company A's recordkeeper will need to set up a source for Company B's match, and the participant's match will need to be set up at 60%. Question. Would I be correct that as the participant continues to earn vesting service the vesting for the account must increase accordingly. Further, would Company A's plan need to be amended to accommodate the protected vesting for the merged Company B accounts? Thank you."

"ok, so, ummmm, first time such a request has come in for an MP plan...participant is curious about an annuity....any recommendation on what company to contact?"

"401k plan adopts a QACA and uses the LTPT exclusion for deferrals, and they will not be eligible for the safe harbor contribution. Once the LTPT has become eligible to defer, are they subject to the auto enrollment rules or can the plan be drafted to exclude this LTPT group in a QACA? This is a pre-enactment plan not subject to the 2025 mandate. Thanks!"

"Anyone else get pushed 5.26/5.36/5.00 as the January rate update, which then were presumed to need to be corridored into 5.25/5.31/5.50? It's like someone in Jacksonville didn't line up the columns right when updating their master to push out to users, since the first two rates are the December 2nd/3rd, while the 5.00 is the January 1st segment."

"Had an interesting question this morning. Client with an ACA (not an EACA nor a QACA, and no auto-increase) wants to limit the auto-enrollment to full-time people only. Only applicable guidance I can find is 1.414(w)-1(b)(1) and (e)(3). Under Treasury Regulation 1.414(w)-1(b)(1), and 1.414(w)-1(e)(3), the ACA need not cover all employees in the plan, and a covered employee for these purposes is as defined under the terms of the plan. Assuming the document provides an “other” election, so this should be allowable. Not sure this was an intended consequence in the regulation, but seems to allow what client wants to do. Not a BRF issue either. Anyone ever run into this request?"