Together, the SECURE Act and the SECURE 2.0 Act require employers to offer employees who work at least 500 hours within three (reduced to two beginning January 1, 2025) consecutive 12-month periods an opportunity to make elective deferrals to their 401(k) and, beginning in 2025, their 403(b) plans. In doing so, the new rule raises numerous questions about how the new service requirement should be tracked. This includes questions about what 12-consecutive month period (often referred to as a “computation period”) employers should use to determine if an employee has completed the requisite service to begin participating in the plan.

Read more here.

Under the SECURE Act and SECURE 2.0 Act, employers must provide long-term, part-time employees the opportunity to make elective deferrals under their 401(k) plans and, beginning in 2025, their 403(b) plans. Under the new rules, long-term, part-time employees include those employees who complete at least 500 hours of service in three consecutive years (reduced to two years in 2025), are at least 21 years old and enter the plan solely because they satisfy this requirement.

When this occurs, certain special rules apply to such employees, including rules that impact when employees become vested and whether such employees must be included in annual nondiscrimination testing or must receive top-heavy vesting and benefits. As a result, many employers have asked whether employees who enter the plan as long-term, part-time employees are always treated like long-term, part-time employees or if that can change throughout the course of their careers. The answer is, well, complicated, and the impact differs depending on whether the employer is applying the special vesting or nondiscrimination and top-heavy rules to such employees.

Read more here.

Under the SECURE Act and the SECURE 2.0 Act, employers must provide long-term, part-time employees the opportunity to make elective deferrals under their 401(k) plans and, beginning in 2025, their 403(b) plans. This new rule is fraught with complexity and has generated numerous questions about how the requirements apply. But in talking about the new rule, we often do so in simpler terms by focusing on the anticipated impact on employees working more than 500 hours (often thought of as the new eligibility threshold) but less than 1,000 hours (often thought of as the old eligibility threshold).

For the most part, that’s fine. In fact, doing so provides a helpful and, in some cases, necessary shorthand for discussing the primary differences between the long-understood old eligibility rule and the more complicated new one. However, because certain special rules apply to employees who enter an employer’s plan as long-term, part-time employees, it is important for all employers to understand when an employee is a long-term, part-time employee.

Read more here.