"Client wants to set up a separate plan from its current existing 401(k) plan, in order to cover separately a new group of employees whose employer they'd purchased. Twin plans, so to speak, they'll have all the same contributions options/investments, etc. But, as a new plan, this one's going to be subject to mandatory enrollment, right? The other plan's grandfathered as not to have it, and they don't plan to change that. I don't recall auto-enrollment being something subject to BRF testing. But can anyone confirm/refute that for me? (Leaving aside for now what would actually be tested -- there could be new owner HCEs right away, before we suggest these will all be NHCEs off the jump.)"

"An attorney & participant in a governmental 457(b) plan sent a vague email inquiry of statements related to distribution rules. The one that has me stumped is, 'The SECURE Act of 2019 permitted in-service distributions from governmental 457(b) plans if the plan fails to offer a specific in-plan annuity option.' My experience is mostly in the ERISA space, but I cannot find anything specific surrounding this statement in the original SECURE Act or other legislation. Ultimately, I believe he's fishing to take an in-service distribution.

"The NRA is 65 and in-service distribution age is 70.5. (This individual is 58 and married.) The Adoption Agreement allows for life and joint life annuitization, so I believe it nullifies an in-service distribution 'mandate,' if you will, from any legislation. That said, the document language does not state if the annuitization option is available pre-70.5 for active employees. If allowed, it also does not specify if he chooses to annuitize, could he:

1. Do a partial annuitization? (As he has a sizeable balance, over $500k.)
2. Continue to make elective deferrals?

If anyone has any insight or experience with similar scenarios, I'd love to hear some thoughts."