The SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (SECURE 2.0) contains several provisions that allow the federal government to have its cake (more tax dollars) and eat it too (more retirement savings, easing Social Security challenges). With SECURE 2.0, we find more Roth, more catch-up, and catch-up as Roth. 

More Roth

Named after the late Delaware Senator William Roth, Roth IRA first became a savings opportunity in 1998.  Starting January 1, 2006, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) added this design feature to 401(k) plans. Although, for the most part, Roth deferrals are treated like pre-tax elective deferrals for plan purposes, they differ in two material respects: 

  1. Roth deferrals are subject to income taxation when contributed to the plan; and
  2. If all of the applicable requirements are met to comprise a “qualified distribution,” the earnings that accrue with respect to the Roth deferral will avoid taxation when distributed. 

Roth elective deferral opportunities and in-plan Roth conversion and rollover opportunities have become relatively common plan features. They have the potential to create powerful savings tools, especially for those in lower income tax brackets. 

Roth treatment historically has been limited to elective deferrals. That changed with SECURE 2.0.  Effective now (i.e., the date of enactment of SECURE 2.0), Section 402A of the tax code permits 401(k), 403(b), and governmental 457(b) plans to permit employees to elect to have employer matching or nonelective contributions treated as designated Roth contributions.  

This avoids the need for participants to jump through the hoops of electing an in-plan Roth conversion with respect to these employer accounts, if permitted by the plan, to achieve this result. This also has the potential to produce marginal tax savings on the accumulated earnings if Roth treatment is elected at the time of contribution (rather than conversion).  

Although immediately effective, employers interested in this opportunity likely will have to wait until payroll and recordkeeping systems are updated to accommodate this change.   

More Catch-Up

Those among us who are familiar with 457(b) plans and 403(b) plans know there are special catch-up contribution rules permitted in these plans that provide enhanced savings opportunities to those approaching retirement age. The concept is simple – let employees save more as they are preparing for retirement. 

For example, Section 403(b) plans can allow employees who have at least 15 years of service to defer up to a lifetime maximum of $15,000 more into the plans than the customary 402(g) deferral limit of $22,500 in 2023. The annual amount is determined using a formula that takes into account years of service, prior elective deferrals, and prior Roth deferrals. 

Likewise, 457(b) plans can allow special catch-up contributions during the 3 years immediately preceding normal retirement age. This allows eligible participants to double their deferral limit or contribute the annual limit plus the amount they did not contribute during prior years, whichever is less. 

Section 109 of SECURE 2.0 brings this concept to 401(k) plans. Starting in 2025, participants who are age 60, 61, 62, and 63 will be subject to a higher catch-up contribution limit. In lieu of the standard Section 414(v) catch-up contribution limit applicable to those who are age 50 or older ($7,500 for 2023), these eligible participants approaching retirement may defer the greater of $10,000 (indexed) or 50% more than the regular catch up contribution limit. 

For example, if, hypothetically, the regular catch-up contribution limit at the time is $9,000, and the indexed special catch-up contribution limit is $11,500, a 60-year-old participant could contribute $13,500 to the plan (the greater of $9,000 x 1.5 = $13,500 or $11,500). 

Catch-Up as Roth

So, what is the catch? Section 603 of SECURE 2.0 amends the catch-up contribution rules to require certain highly paid workers to contribute all of their catch-up contributions as Roth contributions starting in 2024. In many instances, this means the government will receive greater tax revenues on the same dollar because those who are actively working customarily are in a higher income tax bracket than they will be when drawing upon retirement savings. So, taxation is the cost of stockpiling retirement savings for these participants. 

Who is highly paid for this purpose? We do not use the standard highly compensated employee definition for this purpose, which is $150,000 for 2023. Instead, we need to keep track of another dollar limit. This special rule applies to anyone earning more than $145,000 in FICA wages in the preceding year, which is subject to indexing in $5,000 increments. Highly paid participants who do not receive FICA wages (e.g., partners) are not currently captured by this rule, but this may be an oversight that is subject to change.

So, back to our example, if the 60-year-old participant is earning more than $145,000 (indexed) in FICA wages when the higher catch-up contribution limit is in effect and wants to take advantage of deferring an additional $13,500 into the plan, that $13,500 will need to be a Roth contribution.  However, if this participant was earning $145,000 (indexed) or less, the $13,500 catch-up contribution could be made on a pre-tax basis.

There are many questions about this change, and implementing guidance is needed. For example, are new hires or employees acquired in connection with a business transaction subject to this requirement in their first year of employment? What does the administrator do if the highly paid participant makes a pre-tax deferral election? For example, many plans process single deferral elections.  Once the regular deferral bucket fills, the deferrals are recharacterized as catch-up contributions. This administrative process will need to be revised, given this change in the law.       

Note that offering only pre-tax catch-up contributions is not an option to avoid this complexity.  SECURE 2.0 specifies that if any participant would be subject to this Roth catch-up rule, the plan must offer a Roth catch-up contribution option in order for any participant (even those earning $145,000 or less) to make catch-up contributions to the plan. Congress designed this provision to ensure plans offer this Roth catch-up option.

Participants also will have important financial and distribution planning questions to resolve. For example, if these catch-up contributions are the first Roth deferrals the individual makes, distribution planning will be needed to avoid taxation on the earnings that accumulate.  Distributions from Roth accounts are not treated as qualified distributions if amounts are distributed within a 5-year period of when the first Roth contribution was made to the plan (or another plan in the case of a rollover). 

Participant communication will be key, and amendments are on the horizon. Stay tuned for more in our series on SECURE 2.0.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis employee benefits team member or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work if you have questions or need assistance.

On December 29, 2022, President Biden signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, a massive omnibus spending bill that will keep the government funded through the end of its September 30, 2023, fiscal year.  Included in Division T of the Act is the bipartisan legislation dubbed the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (SECURE 2.0).  Containing voluminous changes, SECURE 2.0 follows the trend set by the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Act of 2019 to reduce barriers and enhance retirement savings opportunities – especially for those with less disposable income. 

During the next several weeks, we will publish a series of articles that will dive deeply into the “need to know” provisions of SECURE 2.0 for our employer clients.  From notice changes to student loan matching opportunities and so much in between, SECURE 2.0 will be a catalyst for both administrative and plan design changes. 

Please contact a Jackson Lewis employee benefits team member or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work if you have questions or need assistance.

As expected, the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (SECURE 2.0), an extensive piece of legislation aimed at retirement plan reform, is included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (the Spending Bill).  The 4,000+ page, $1.7 trillion Spending Bill was released early morning on Tuesday, December 20, with a passage deadline of Friday, December 23.  If the deadline is not met, another continuing resolution must be passed to avoid a government shutdown.   

SECURE 2.0 includes over 100 provisions intended to expand coverage, increase retirement savings, and simplify and clarify retirement plan rules.  The retirement package is a consolidation of three bills – the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee’s Retirement Improvement and Savings Enhancement to Supplement Healthy Investments for the Nest Egg Act (the RISE & SHINE Act), the Senate Finance Committee’s Enhance America’s Retirement Now (EARN) Act, and the House Ways and Means Committee’s Securing a Strong Retirement Act (the only included bill without a creative acronym).

SECURE 2.0 is intended to build on the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (the original SECURE Act).  The SECURE Act is the less expansive predecessor to SECURE 2.0, ushering in quieter revisions to retirement plan rules, such as raising the age of required minimum distributions (RMDs) and eliminating age limits for traditional IRA contributions.  Bolstered by the overwhelming bipartisan support of the SECURE Act, SECURE 2.0 makes even more aggressive changes to retirement plan governance, including key provisions such as:

  • Mandatory automatic enrollment.  Effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2024, new 401(k) and 403(b) plans would have to automatically enroll participants upon attaining eligibility.  The automatic deferrals would start at between 3% and 10% of compensation, increasing by 1% each year to a maximum of at least 10% but no more than 15% of compensation.
  • Increased age for RMDs.  Participants are generally required to take retirement plan distributions upon attainment of a certain age.  Before the SECURE Act, the age for RMDs was 70.5.  The SECURE Act increased that age to 72.  SECURE 2.0 further increases the age to 73, beginning on January 1, 2023, and again to age 75 beginning on January 1, 2033.  In addition, SECURE 2.0 would reduce, and sometimes, eliminate altogether, the excise tax imposed on failing to take RMDs.
  • Increase the catch-up limit.  The dollar amount that participants can elect to defer each year is capped at a statutory maximum.  Under current law, participants who age 50 or older may defer an additional amount over the statutory maximum, referred to as a “catch-up.”  Beginning in 2025, SECURE 2.0 would increase the catch-up amount by at least 50% for participants who are between the ages of 60 and 63.   
  • Matching of student loan repayments. Effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2023, employers could match student loan repayments as if the student loan repayments were deferrals.
  • Small financial incentives for participation.  Employers could offer de minimis financial incentives, such as low-dollar gift cards, to boost participation in retirement plans.  The financial incentives cannot be purchased with plan assets.
  • Emergency withdrawals.  SECURE 2.0 would permit penalty-free distributions for “unforeseeable or immediate financial needs relating to necessary personal or family emergency expenses” up to $1,000.  Only one distribution would be permitted every three years, or one per year if the distribution is repaid within three years. SECURE 2.0 would also permit penalty-free withdrawals of small amounts for participants who need the funds in cases of domestic abuse or terminal illness.
  • Automatic rollovers.  Under current law, plans can automatically distribute small accounts of less than $5,000 to former participants.  If the distribution is greater than $1,000, the plan must roll the account into an IRA.  Effective 12 months from enactment, SECURE 2.0 would permit the transfer of default IRAs into the participant’s new employer’s plan, unless the participant affirmatively elects to the contrary. SECURE 2.0 would also increase the limit for automatic rollovers from $5,000 to $7,000.
  • Eligibility for long-term, part-time workers.   Under current law, employees with at least 1,000 hours of service in a 12-month period or 500 hours of service in a three-consecutive-year period must be eligible to participate in the employer’s qualified retirement plan.  SECURE 2.0 would reduce that three-year rule to two years, for plan years beginning after December 31, 2024. 
  • Emergency savings accounts.  If provided by the terms of a plan, non-highly compensated employees could defer up to the lesser of 3% of compensation or $2,500 (post-tax) to an emergency savings account under the plan. 
  • Lost and found.  SECURE 2.0 would create a national online searchable database to enable employers to locate “missing” plan participants, and plan participants to locate retirement funds. 
  • Unenrolled employee notices.  SECURE 2.0 would eliminate the requirement to send certain notices to employees who have elected not to enroll in an employer’s retirement plan; provided, that the employees are provided with an annual reminder notice of eligibility to participate.

The Senate is expected to take up the Spending Bill on December 22.  Assuming passage in the Senate, the House will vote on December 23.  Because SECURE 2.0 essentially combines three previously proposed bills with heavy bipartisan support, it is unlikely extensive revisions to SECURE 2.0 will be necessary to pass the Spending Bill.  Whether other provisions of the Spending Bill will survive, however, is much less clear.  Final passage of the Spending Bill in some form or another is anticipated by the December 23 deadline.    

Please contact a Jackson Lewis employee benefits team member or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work if you have questions or need assistance.

We recently summarized the regulatory back and forth of the past few years relating to environmental, social, and corporate governance (“ESG”) factors and their impact on ERISA retirement plans and the fiduciaries that oversee them. 

As expected, the Biden administration released a proposed rule last year that re-opened the door (previously closed by the Trump administration) for retirement plan fiduciaries to consider ESG factors as part of their overall process in choosing retirement plan investments and making proxy voting decisions.

After reading the proposed rule, many were concerned that it imposed a mandate to consider ESG factors.  The Department of Labor assuages that concern with the recent release of the final rule.  In the preamble to the final rule, the DOL confirms that the rule imposes no such mandate (and modified the questioned language of the proposed rule in the final rule). 

The final rule reflects these three principles: 

  1. A fiduciary must base a determination relating to plan investments on factors that the fiduciary reasonably determines are relevant to a risk and return analysis, using appropriate investment horizons consistent with the plan’s investment objectives and considering the funding policy of the plan;
  2. The risk and return factors may include the economic effects of climate change and other environmental, social, or governance factors on the particular investment or investment course of action.  Whether any particular consideration is a risk-return factor depends on the individual facts and circumstances; and
  3. The weight given to any factor by a fiduciary should appropriately reflect an assessment of its impact on risk and return.

The DOL is also clear that nothing in the final rule changes the longstanding principle that “the duties of prudence and loyalty require plan fiduciaries to focus on relevant risk-return factors and not subordinate the interests of participants and beneficiaries (such as by sacrificing investment returns or taking on additional investment risk) to objectives unrelated to the provision of benefits under the plan.” 

The final rule also provides that the standards for qualified default investment alternatives (“QDIAs”), i.e., the investments into which a plan places participant funds when participants haven’t made an investment election, are the same as any other plan investment.  (This is a change from the prior regulations.)

Another key component of the final rule is an amendment to the “tiebreaker” test under the current regulations, which requires competing investments to be indistinguishable based entirely on pecuniary factors before fiduciaries can break a tie with collateral factors (like ESG).  The current regulations also impose a special disclosure requirement if considering such collateral factors.  The final rule instead requires a fiduciary to conclude prudently that competing investments equally serve the financial interests of the plan over the appropriate time horizon.  It also removes the special disclosure requirement.

The final rule further indicates that fiduciaries do not violate their duty of loyalty solely because they take participants’ preferences into account when choosing a menu of plan investment options for participant-directed individual account plans.  The DOL recognizes that considering whether an investment option aligns with participants’ preferences can be relevant to furthering the purposes of a plan—i.e., greater participation and higher deferral rates, as suggested by commenters, which may lead to greater retirement security.  Plan fiduciaries may see this as a means to consider other types of investments in response to participant requests, such as private equity and crypto-based products (though the choice of investment options will, first and foremost, always be subject to general fiduciary considerations).

Finally, the final rule retains the core principle that when a plan’s assets include shares of stock, the fiduciary duty to manage plan assets includes the management of shareholder rights related to those shares, such as the right to vote proxies.  It does make certain changes that may encourage proxy voting (rather than abstention) and clarifies that proxy voting and other exercises of shareholder rights carry the same fiduciary obligations as any other plan fiduciary activities.

The final rule will go into effect 60 days following its publication in the Federal Register, with extended deadlines for certain proxy provisions.

Members of the Jackson Lewis Employee Benefits practice group and the newly launched Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) service group continue to review the text of the final rule and are available to assist.  Please contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work if you have questions.

Rx Data Collection

As group health plan sponsors, employers are responsible for ensuring compliance with the prescription drug data collection (RxDC) reporting requirements added to ERISA by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (CAA).  Under ERISA section 725, enforced by the US Department of Labor (DOL), group health plans (not account-based plans, e.g., health reimbursement arrangements and health savings accounts, or excepted benefit arrangements) must report details regarding the plan’s prescription drug benefit utilization, including the drugs most frequently dispensed, the most expensive drugs, and the drugs with the highest cost increase for a given calendar year.  Reporting is to be made annually to the US Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) CMS enterprise portal’s Health Insurance Oversight System (HIOS) module, starting with the report due by December 27, 2022, for the 2020 and 2021 calendar years.  After that, annual reporting is due by June 1st following the calendar year (so, the 2022 calendar year report is due by June 1, 2023).  The DOL must thereafter post aggregated information on its website so that the public can see trends in prescription drug utilization and pricing.        

What’s required.  Under regulations issued jointly by HHS, DOL, and the US Treasury Department, plans must submit RxDC reports which include –

  • General information about the plan like the plan sponsor, plan year, number of participants, market segment (small or large group and fully-insured or self-insured), insurer and other vendors, and the states in which coverage is offered, etc. (“plan list” information – see the template document for reporting, using code P2 for group health plans, at this link);
  • Eight data files:
    • Premium/cost and life-year (average number of covered members) data (D1),
    • spending by six categories – hospital, primary care, specialty care, other medical costs and services, known medical benefit drugs, and estimated medical benefit drugs (D2),
    • top 50 most frequently dispensed brand name drugs by state and market segment (D3),
    • top 50 most costly drugs by state and market segment (D4),
    • top 50 drugs by spending increase by state and market segment, excluding drugs issued an Emergency Use Authorization or not FDA-approved (D5),
    • prescription drug spending totals (D6),
    • prescription drug rebates by therapeutic class (D7),
    • and prescription drug rebates for the top 25 drugs by state and market segment (D8); and
  • A narrative that describes the impact of prescription drug rebates on premium and cost-sharing, how the employer size was estimated (for self-insured plan sponsors), how bundled or alternative payment arrangements attributable to drugs covered under a medical benefit were estimated, and how net payments from government reinsurance and cost-sharing reduction programs were considered (if applicable).  The narrative also is used to identify any drugs prescribed for which a National Drug Code (NDC) was not on the CMS RxDC code crosswalk, and the types of rebates and other remuneration included in or excluded from the D8 data file.     

How to comply.  HIOS issued specific reporting instructions which explain the reporting requirements in detail and assure plan sponsors that submission for a plan “is considered complete if CMS receives all required files, regardless of who submits the files.”  Many group health plan vendors (insurers, third-party administrators, pharmacy benefit managers, etc.) have proactively contacted plan sponsors to assure them that the vendor will report at least some of the information on the plan’s behalf.  However, not all vendors are willing to accept responsibility for the RxDC reporting requirements.  Employers need to know which reporting obligations will be fulfilled by the group health insurer or other vendor and which reporting obligations must be satisfied by the plan sponsor.  Most plan sponsors are wise to be prepared to upload at least some of the data to the HIOS module themselves, which means first setting up a HIOS account on the CMS portal.  HIOS accounts can take a couple of weeks to set up, so it’s important for plan sponsors to act on this now if they’ve not already done so.  CMS has provided detailed instructions for setting up the HIOS account. 

Compliance issues.  The statute and regulations impose the RxDC reporting requirements on group health plans, which, by default, usually means that requirements and liability for noncompliance are imposed on plan sponsors (generally, employers).  Thus, each group health plan sponsor should ensure that all of the RxDC reporting requirements are satisfied for each group health plan subject to the reporting requirements.  Employers should obtain written agreements from plan vendors identifying what data each vendor will upload.  Note that the employer remains liable for noncompliance (and subject to excise tax and potential civil penalties), even if it has an enforceable agreement with its vendor to ensure compliance unless the plan is fully-insured and the agreement is with the insurer.  Unfortunately, only the reporting entity can view the files it uploads to HIOS, so there is no way for an employer to confirm on the HIOS module that a vendor uploaded the file(s) it agreed to upload on behalf of the employer’s group health plan.  Instead, the employer should obtain written assurance from the plan’s vendor(s) and rely on contractual provisions for recourse if a vendor fails to fulfill its RxDC reporting service as agreed.    

If you have questions about this or any other employee benefits matter, contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you usually work or anyone in the firm’s Employee Benefits Practice Group. 

Beginning as early as January 15, 2023, certain employers will need to ensure they are complying with the District of Columbia’s Transportation Benefits Equity Amendment Act of 2020, also known as the “Parking Cash Out Law.”

Parking Cash Out Options

By January 15, 2023, or the end of their parking lease, whichever is later, “Covered Employers” with at least 20 D.C. employees that offer free or subsidized leased parking benefits must comply with the law by adopting one of the following “Parking Cash Out Options”: More…

ESG-concept-environmental-social-governance-vector-illustration_647188-23

For those with an eye on ERISA and its fiduciary rules, the past few years have caused whiplash when it comes to environmental, social, and corporate governance (“ESG”) investments in retirement plans.  With a new rule from the Department of Labor imminent, let’s review where we are, how we got here, and what’s next.

ERISA generally requires those making investment decisions for retirement plans to do so solely in the best interests of plan participants, taking into account pecuniary factors like fees, and risks and returns.  Guidance issued during the Obama administration indicated an openness to non-pecuniary factors, such as ESG, as a “tie-breaker”.  The tide turned during the Trump administration, with additional guidance and a final rule eventually issued, which required plan fiduciaries to “select investment and investment courses of action based solely on financial considerations relevant to the risk-adjusted economic value of a particular investment or investment course of action.”

In an unsurprising twist, the Biden administration soon reversed course, blocking the Trump administration’s final rule and issuing its own proposed rule to “remove barriers to plan fiduciaries’ ability to consider climate change and other environmental, social and governance factors when they select investments and exercise shareholder rights.”  A DOL fact sheet seeks to address concerns that the rule fundamentally changes a fiduciary’s duties, by highlighting the fact that the proposed rule “retains the core principle that the duties of prudence and loyalty require ERISA plan fiduciaries to focus on material risk-return factors and not subordinate the interests of participants and beneficiaries (such as by sacrificing investment returns or taking on additional investment risk) to objectives unrelated to the provision of benefits under the plan.”

The final rule is now under review with the White House and is expected to be released soon.  We will provide an update when that occurs.

Meanwhile, four House Republicans recently introduced the Safeguarding Investment Options for Retirement Act, with the stated purpose of protecting “investors from having politically motivated ‘woke’ environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues put ahead of hardworking Americans’ investment return.”

What is a plan sponsor or committee to do?  Whatever happens in the upcoming midterms, we expect the rules regarding ESG funds in retirement plans to remain a contentious subject, potentially changing with each presidential administration.  It is imperative for plan fiduciaries to work closely with the plan’s financial advisors and legal counsel to ensure that all relevant factors—including the latest guidance on ESG—are being considered when making plan investment decisions. 

Members of the Jackson Lewis Employee Benefits practice group and the newly launched Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) service group are available to assist.  Please contact a Jackson Lewis employee benefits team member or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work if you have questions or need assistance.

A New York federal court recently held that a service provider for employer-sponsored retirement plans was not liable as a fiduciary under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) when it used participant information to encourage certain plan participants to roll over assets into its more expensive managed account program.  Carfora v. Teachers Ins. Annuity Ass’n of Am., No. 21 Civ. 8384, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175613 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2022). More…

The Internal Revenue Service recently announced its cost-of-living adjustments applicable to dollar limitations on benefits and contributions for retirement plans generally effective for Tax Year 2023 (see IRS Notice 2022-55). Most notably, the limitation on annual salary deferrals into a 401(k) or 403(b) plan will increase from $20,500 to $22,500 and the dollar threshold for highly compensated employees will increase to $150,000. The more significant dollar limits for 2023 are as follows:

LIMIT

2022

2023

401(k)/403(b) Elective Deferral Limit (IRC § 402(g)) The annual limit on an employee’s elective deferrals to a 401(k) or 403(b) plan made through salary reduction.

$20,500

$22,500

Government/Tax Exempt Deferral Limit (IRC § 457(e)(15)) The annual limit on an employee’s elective deferrals concerning Section 457deferred compensation plans of state and local governments and tax-exempt organizations.

$20,500

$22,500

401(k)/403(b)/457 Catch-up Limit (IRC § 414(v)(2)(B)(i)) In addition to the regular limit on elective deferrals described
above, employees over the age of 50 generally can make an additional “catch-up” contribution not to exceed this limit.

$6,500

$7,500

Defined Contribution Plan Limit (IRC § 415(c)) The limitation for annual contributions to a defined contribution
plan (such as a 401(k) plan or profit sharing plan).

$61,000

$66,000

Defined Benefit Plan Limit (IRC § 415(b)) The limitation on the annual benefits from a defined benefit plan.

$245,000

$265,000

Annual Compensation Limit (IRC § 401(a)(17)) The maximum amount of compensation that may be taken into account for benefit calculations and nondiscrimination testing.

$305,000 ($450,000 for certain gov’t plans)

$330,000 ($490,000 for certain gov’t plans)

Highly Compensated Employee Threshold (IRC § 414(q)) The definition of an HCE includes a compensation threshold for
the prior year. A retirement plan’s discrimination testing is based
on coverage and benefits for HCEs.

$135,000 (for 2023 HCE determination)

$150,000 (for 2024 HCE determination)

Key Employee Compensation Threshold (IRC § 416) The definition of a key employee includes a compensation threshold. Key employees must be determined for purposes of applying the top-heavy rules. Generally, a plan is top-heavy if the plan benefits of key employees exceed 60% of the aggregate plan benefits of all employees.

$200,000

$215,000

SEP Minimum Compensation Limit (IRC § 408(k)(2)(C)) The mandatory participation requirements for a simplified
employee pension (SEP) includes this minimum compensation threshold.

$650

$750

SIMPLE Employee Contribution (IRC § 408(p)(2)(E)) The limitation on deferrals to a SIMPLE retirement account.

$14,000

$15,500

SIMPLE Catch-up Limit (IRC § 414(v)(2)(B)(ii))) The maximum amount of catch-up contributions that individuals
age 50 or over may make to a SIMPLE retirement account or SIMPLE 401(k) plan.

$3,000

$3,500

Social Security Taxable Wage Base See the 2023 SS Changes Fact Sheet. This threshold is the maximum amount of earned income on which Social Security taxes may be imposed (6.20% paid by the employee and 6.20% paid by the employer).

$147,000

$160,200

Please contact a team member or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work if you have questions or need assistance.

Withdrawal liability is a statutory obligation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) that any unionized employer may have to confront. Exemptions from liability include one applicable to construction industry employers. More…