"One of our participants had a contentious divorce. Defendant spouse is filing and appeal of the court order finalizing the divorce. Spouse is claiming that she needs to remain covered under our medical plan until her appeal is heard. Participant is objecting. Has anyone ever had this happen before? I am purposely omitting the state involved and recognize that might make it impossible to answer."

"Participant in a tax exempt 457(f) plan died and a portion of the benefit was previously included in the participant's income (i.e. the participant paid taxes for a portion of the benefit which vested in a prior year). Trustee says that the total amount distributed to the beneficiary, including the previously taxed amount, will be reported in Box 3 of 1099-Misc. I am familiar with the timing rules for reporting death benefits in the w-2 and 1099-Misc, and have thoroughly reviewed the 1099-Misc instructions. My questions are:

1. Whether the trustee should be reporting the total distribution in Box 3 of the 1099-Misc, or just the taxable portion?
2. If the trustee insists on reporting the total distribution (both taxable and non-taxable portion) in Box 3, how should the beneficiary avoid double taxation on the portion that was previously taxed? Should we provide some kind of statement to the beneficiary that includes the portion of the distribution that was previously taxed?
3. Bonus question- any thoughts on how the beneficiary could have the previously taxed portion excluded from income when the beneficiary files their tax return?"

"Different companies in a controlled group sponsor different 401(k) plans. They intend to satisfy coverage separately. One of the plans fails coverage even when the not otherwise excludable employees are tested separately. The question is this: can they expand the coverage group to bring in otherwise excludable employees of the employer or must they bring in not otherwise excludable employees even if they are from other employers in the group? For what it's worth, and based on the language of the regs, we are leaning towards the latter approach -- that the additional employees must be not otherwise excludable to comply with the description of the two testing groups in the regs."

"Does anyone have thoughts as to whether the decision to change method for determining minimum contributions and/or related application for IRS approval is considered a fiduciary or settlor function?"

"Husband and wife cpa business. Both HCEs. When they make the PS contribution do each of them have to receive the same percentage? As long as the 415 limit isn't exceeded can we do that?"

"I would appreciate any input on helping me think through the deemed Roth catch-up contribution feature with respect to the new mandatory Roth catch-up contribution rules for high earners. Here is the scenario: [1] Plan will adopt a deemed Roth catch-up contribution feature. [2] HPI will be presented with election form no later than 12/1/25, and will be given the opportunity to elect out of the deemed Roth feature. [3] HPI elects out of deemed Roth feature before first pay date in 2026. [4] Plan allows deferral election changes at any time. Employer does not want to limit deferral election changes to only one time per year. [5] Mid-year 2026, HPI wants to revoke her election opting out of the deemed Roth feature. In other words, HPI now wants her catch-up contributions be deemed to be Roth catch-up contributions. Can HPI revoke her opt out election mid-year, thus electing to be subject to the deemed Roth catch-up contribution feature?

• If she can revoke her opt out election mid-year, are there different mid-year revocation deadlines depending on whether the catch-up contribution will be triggered as a result of exceeding the 402(g) limit (which will be known mid-year) vis a vis exceeding the ADP limit (which won't be known until early 2027)?
• If there are no hard rules under the CODA regulations for this type of mid-year revocation, can sponsor take the approach (as a reasonable interpretation of the regulations) that the mid-year revocation is permissible as long as it is not known at the time of revocation whether a specific deferral limit has been exceeded?"