"This client is very responsive and always gets to me the annual census, financial info, and once completed the 5500 signed so that we can file quickly. Unfortunately, for 2023 I just didn't hit the file button so the 5500 didn't get filed. 2024 has been filed. They received and sent to me the love letter from the IRS saying that they don't have record of receiving the 5500 for 2023. Can I still do the DFVC? No penalty letter has been received. Is there no way to plead to the IRS to let it go? ... What's the best way to go about this?"

"Employee A works for Company X. For 2025, A elected family medical coverage under X's health plan. Family coverage costs the employee $275 in monthly premium payments. Employee A was actually charged $300 per month for such coverage. X's health plan discovers the error in the third quarter of 2025. Is X required to repay A the amount of the extra premium amount? Is X required to include interest on the reimbursed premium amount?"

"Non-profit Executive has been given the right to retire before his SERP's age 65 vesting date. The SERP clause requiring forfeiture for voluntary termination before 65 is forgiven. I see no problem in accelerating the SERP's age 65 short term deferral. The issue would be if the gap between voluntary termination and the original vesting date (age 65) can be filled with a bona fide non-competition / non-solicitation clause. In other words, the payment will still be at the age 65 date (helpful for Executive's tax planning) and forfeitable if he violates the non competition/non solicitation clause in the gap between voluntary termination and the SERP's age 65 vesting date.

"My concern is that this seems like an impermissible extension of a vesting requirement. Under the Plan, he should forfeit at early voluntary termination, but that requirement is being forgiven with the help of the non-competition / non-solicitation clause that is in force until age 65. The payment will be no later than age 65, the original vesting date. Is this an impermissible extension of a risk of forfeiture? Am I being too nervous?"

"The final regs allow this. Other than for possible administrative simplicity/consistency, is there any other good reason to do this? I can't think of one. Most of our clients (we are primarily smaller plan market) would prefer NOT to be forced into HPI status if not required to do so. Thoughts?"

"Suppose a controlled group has two 401k plans -- A and B. The decision makers told both plans not to add super catch-ups. Plan B ignored the direction and added super catch-ups. For sake of argument, decision makers refuse to add super catch-ups to plan A. How does one fix a universal availability failure? Does plan B have to be amended retroactively to remove super catch-up and therefore remove/distribute any super catch-up deferrals? Or is plan A forced to add super catch-ups?"