"The sponsor of a PEO MEP is bringing about a new client that already has their own 401k plan. It's a small plan, but very messy, with provisions that are not part of the MEP (e.g., vesting, distribution options). I'm thinking that we can't tell them to terminate the 401k and then join the MEP - that might run afoul of successor plan rules. But what about if we terminate the 401k and tell all the participants that they have to rollover into the MEP? Or is there another way around this (other than amending the MEP to allow for all sorts of strange things for this one adopting ER only)?"

"Trying to create a solution to help support some operational failures. our base plan document allows us to add on an administrative policy around the order in which deductions are withheld from payroll to avoid under deferring or over deferring. We also have plans that are missed as sometimes there is not enough of a person's pay to allow for their mandatory and voluntary deductions. This does not appear to be a big item in plans documents or that a lot of plans have this. The thought is to adopt a policy in case the deductions are more than their pay, but I do not see any official ERISA guidance. Our plan compensation and to make our plan work, we need to have employees making deferrals. any thoughts or challenges? Anyone see where if not enough funds, 401k loans are withheld before their elective contributions?"

"Have an on-going traditional 401(k) plan (calendar year). Can it be changed to a safe harbor 401(k) plan (with SHNE contributions) effective for this 2024 calendar year or do we need to wait until 2025?"

"The guidance seems to indicate only employed participants may avail of hardship distributions, as the directing code section and treasury regulations seem to deliberately refer to 'employees' in contrast to 'participants'."

"In Texas v. Garland, ... the court holds that the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 is not an Act of Congress because the House of Representatives lacked a constitutional quorum on December 23, 2022 when the House voted on the Senate-passed bill. SECURE 2022 is division T of that Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 ... The court's orders, even if all stays expire or otherwise end, do not act on division T. Rather, the court enjoins only the U.S. government's enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act against the State of Texas. Yet, until there is a final decision of the Supreme Court of the United States: Might a plan sponsor that dislikes SECURE 2022's added or extended provisions about long-term part-time employees (not challenging the provisions enacted in SECURE 2019) assert that the [IRS] cannot require those provisions as a condition for a plan's tax-qualified treatment? If, next year, a person who would be eligible if added ERISA Section 202(c) is law is denied her elective-deferral opportunity, might the plan's administrator argue that a judge must dismiss the participant's complaint because it fails to state a claim on which relief could be granted? About permissive provisions a plan sponsor likes, one imagines neither the Labor department nor the Treasury department would assert that a SECURE 2022 provision is not law because such an assertion would be contrary to at least the litigation position of the United States." [ Texas v. Garland , No. 23-0034 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2024)]