"A few questions questions regarding SECURE Act amendments: [1] My understanding is that 401(k) plan documents have until December 31, 2026 to be amended for any SECURE Act provisions, even if operationally implemented earlier (e,g, Roth catch-up elections implemented in 2025). Is this correct? [2] Are plan amendments required for: [a] The annual paper statement requirement of SECURE 2.0 Sec 338 -- my inclination is that you wouldn't have to unless there were something in the plan document that suggested something to the contrary. [b] The disclosures for eligible unenrolled participants requirements of SECURE 2.0 Sec. 320 -- again, my inclination is that you wouldn't have to unless there were something in the plan document that suggested something to the contrary."

"We just received the 2025 SECURE 2.0 Amendment from ftWilliam. Most, if not all, of our clients will be going with the default selections in the amendment. Out of curiosity, are firms having their clients formally adopt the amendment now, or are most waiting until the required deadline of December 31, 2026?"

"My employer has done quite a few layoffs this year and has offered those former employees COBRA subsidies as part of their severance agreement. My question is: if an employee is offered a COBRA Subsidy for a certain number of months, but does not actually elect COBRA, does that amount still need to be reported on their w2 for informational purposes? Or does it only need to be included if they elect COBRA?"

"An employer wants to amend their plan to adopt QACA. Can they have QACA apply to just employees hired after a certain date or does QACA have to apply to everyone? They currently have a basic safe harbor match plan. The QACA match differs from the SHM and having 2 different SHM formulas in the plan is not permitted (I think). The employer would prefer not to have existing employees have to go through any enrollment process or have anyone currently employed defaulted into the plan. But if everyone currently employed has an affirmative election to participate or not in the plan, would those employees really need to complete anything for the QACA? I would think not."

"A 403(b) participant passed away and TIAA/CREF is saying that he named his widow for a portion of his account/certificate, but did not name a beneficiary for another portion, and that portion is to go to his spouse 50% and his estate 50%. If in fact there was no beneficiary designation, that checks out with the SPD (confirming my long-held belief that 403(b)s are a different world). I'm familiar with the idea of a see-through trust, but is there any such thing as a see-through estate? She is the only beneficiary of his estate so she is ultimately entitled to all of the benefits, and of course would prefer to roll them over rather than open an estate and have the estate treated as the direct beneficiary. I don't think so but thought I would take a shot."

"I'm looking for perspective on the issue of the Top-25 restricted payment rule in DB plans, or specifically in this Cash Balance Plan. We have a participant who is among the Top-25 highest paid employees and would be restricted from taking a lump sum under these rules under normal circumstances. The relevant facts are as follows:

• Individually designed DB Plan effective July 1, 2009, restated July 1, 2021.
• Plan has only ever covered HCEs (NHCEs have never been covered; professional medical group).
• There are approximately 60 participants, but about 70 employees total.
• Currently less than 100% funded, but still above 80% threshold.
• Benefits include interest credits tied to actual market returns, subject to anti-cutback rules (participants effectively 'fund' their own benefit).
• Plan Document includes legacy restricted payment language referencing:
  • Top-25 highest paid HCEs
  • Current liabilities
  • Escrow arrangements
  • An explicit exception stating the restriction does not apply if the plan never benefited any NHCEs.

Here are my two specific questions: [1] From a technical standpoint, is it correct that the legacy top-25 restricted payment rule does not apply in an HCE-only plan, consistent with the 'never benefited NHCEs' carve-out found in older individually designed documents? [2] Setting aside funding level thresholds which are not currently triggered, how would you view the risk of allowing distributions in a less than fully funded HCE only DB plan, where early distributions could materially shift funding risk to remaining participants due to anti-cutback provisions? Particularly when the participant seeking the distribution is among the Top-25 highest paid? More generally, is this just a known but acceptable feature? Is it still legally required to not allow a top 25 paid employee to take his full lump sum? Is this a fiduciary concern requiring discretionary limits? Or if this is not a legal issue, is this something that should be voluntarily adopted to prevent funding issues?"