Loading resource...
What it means: Automatic enrollment errors become more expensive the longer they remain undiscovered. For calendar-year plans subject to the auto-enroll mandate under SECURE Act 2.0, an early-fall payroll and eligibility review is prudent to meet an October 15, 2026, correction deadline.
SECURE Act 2.0 created a permanent correction rule for certain errors involving automatic enrollment and automatic escalation, and the IRS provided more guidance in Notice 2024-2. If the required conditions are met, a plan may correct certain implementation errors without making a qualified nonelective contribution (QNEC) for the participant’s missed deferral opportunity.
The statutory correction rule is not limited to plans newly subject to SECURE 2.0’s auto-enroll mandate. It may apply more broadly to reasonable administrative errors involving an existing auto-enroll or escalation feature, affirmative elections, or employees improperly excluded from making an election.
Generally, correct deferrals must begin no later than the first payment of compensation on or after the earlier of:
The end of the 9½-month period following the end of the plan year in which the error first occurred; or
For an employee who notified the sponsor of the error, the end of the month following the month in which the employee provided notice.
For a calendar-year plan with an implementation error that first occurred during 2025, the 9½-month period ends October 15, 2026. The plan generally must begin correct deferrals with the first payroll on or after that date, if the earlier employee-notification deadline does not apply.
The 0% QNEC rule does not mean that the sponsor owes nothing. Plans must still make required corrective matching contributions, adjusted for earnings, and give affected participants a corrective notice within 45 days after the correct deferrals start.
If the 0% QNEC safe harbor is no longer available, sponsors must use other correction methods under the Employee Plan Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS). A 25% QNEC could be due, and the plan must begin correct deferrals no later than the earlier of the first payroll on or after the last day of the third plan year following the plan year in which the failure occurred, or, if the participant notifies the plan sponsor of the error, the first payroll on or after the end of the following month. The plan must notify participants within 45 days after the correct deferrals start.
If neither the 0% nor 25% reduced-QNEC correction applies, the next EPCRS correction method generally requires a QNEC equal to 50% of the participant’s missed deferral opportunity, together with any missed matching contribution and applicable earnings.
Plans subject to automatic enrollment should review:
Employees hired or who became eligible during 2025 for auto-enrollment (the first year mandated for certain plans).
Initial automatic deferral percentages and automatic escalation.
Participant affirmative elections.
Payroll-to-recordkeeper data feeds.
Required corrective matching contributions, earnings, and participant correction notices, if applicable.
For a deeper dive, please see our Case of the Week, Automatic Enrollment Failure.
What it means: The federal government’s Saver’s Match could make retirement contributions considerably more valuable for eligible lower- and moderate-income savers. Advisors should prepare to help both eligible clients claim the match and plan sponsors determine whether their plans will accept it.
The IRS released Notice 2026-48 on August 7, 2026, providing preliminary guidance on the new Saver’s Match under SECURE Act 2.0. The Saver’s Match replaces the current Saver’s Credit for certain retirement savings contributions beginning in 2027.
Eligible individuals may receive a federal matching contribution of up to 50 percent of the first $2,000 of qualified retirement savings contributions, for a maximum annual match of $1,000. Treasury will deposit the match directly into an eligible retirement plan or individual retirement account (IRA), rather than providing a tax credit against income tax liability, as is the practice for the Saver’s Credit.
Qualified retirement savings contributions generally include an individual’s contributions to a traditional or Roth IRA, elective deferrals to an eligible employer retirement plan, and certain voluntary after-tax employee contributions. Rollovers and transfers between retirement accounts do not count. Note: A Roth IRA contribution can generate a Saver’s Match even though the Saver’s Match itself generally cannot be deposited into a Roth IRA or designated Roth account.
For 2027, an individual generally will not qualify for the Saver’s Match if their modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) equals or exceeds $35,500 for single or married-filing-separately taxpayers, $53,250 for heads of households, or $71,000 for married individuals filing jointly or surviving spouses. The 50% match begins phasing out at 2027 MAGI of $20,500 for single or married-filing-separately taxpayers, $30,750 for heads of household, and $41,000 for joint filers and surviving spouses. Income is not the only eligibility condition. Individuals generally are ineligible if they are under age 18, full-time students, dependents of another taxpayer, or certain nonresident aliens.
Importantly, otherwise eligible retirement accounts are not required to receive the payment. Generally, a plan or IRA must agree to accept Saver’s Match contributions. Roth IRAs and designated Roth accounts may not receive Saver’s Match contributions directly from the Treasury. A plan must be amended if it elects to receive Saver’s Match contributions. Acceptance is optional, and a plan may impose reasonable conditions, such as accepting contributions only for current employees or participants with existing account balances. Notice 2026-48 anticipates that a match below $100 may, at the taxpayer’s election, be received as a refundable tax credit rather than deposited into a retirement account.
The IRS expects the first Saver’s Match payments to be made in 2028, based on qualified contributions made for the 2027 tax year and claimed using an anticipated new Form 8880-A, Saver’s Match for Qualified Retirement Savings Contributions, when available.
Notice 2026-48 also addresses a Saver’s Match recovery tax that may apply in certain situations when Saver’s Match amounts have been deposited into an account, and the participant subsequently takes certain taxable early distributions. A Saver’s Match recovery tax may apply when an individual takes a “specified early distribution” from the retirement account that received the Saver’s Match directly from the Treasury. A specified early distribution is the taxable portion of a distribution that is also subject to the 10% additional tax under IRC §72(t). If, at year-end, the aggregate Saver’s Match contributions deposited into that account exceed its remaining balance, the recovery tax generally equals that excess, reduced by the IRC §72(t) additional tax attributable to the distribution and any allocable investment losses. The individual may further reduce—potentially to zero—the recovery tax by making replacement contributions, up to the amount of the specified early distribution, to an eligible retirement vehicle by the due date, including extensions, of the applicable tax return. The notice also clarifies that these special recovery-tax rules do not follow amounts transferred through a rollover or trustee-to-trustee transfer IRS Notice 2026-48, §§ III and IV.I-4
Jane, age 40, has a traditional IRA worth $3,000, including $1,000 in Saver’s Match contributions from the IRS. She withdraws the entire $3,000, all taxable, and leaves a zero year-end balance. Assume no investment losses, no exception to the 10% early-distribution tax, and no subsequent contributions.
Her recovery tax is calculated as follows:
Saver’s Match contributions exceeding the year-end balance: $1,000 − $0 = $1,000
Less the 10% early-distribution tax: $3,000 × 10% = $300
Saver’s Match recovery tax: $700
Jane therefore owes $700 in recovery tax plus $300 in early-distribution tax, in addition to regular income tax on the withdrawal.
Rollover distinction: If Jane first transfers the entire balance to another IRA, the recovery-tax rules do not follow those transferred amounts. A later withdrawal from the receiving IRA could still trigger regular income tax and the 10% early-distribution tax, but no Saver’s Match recovery tax on those amounts.
Advisors could begin preparing their clients for the start of the Saver’s Match by:
Identifying clients who may qualify based on income.
Explaining how the Saver’s Match differs from an employer matching contribution and the current Saver’s Credit
Asking recordkeepers and IRA trustees/custodians whether they intend to accept Saver’s Match contributions.
Coordinating Saver’s Match planning with participant education and broader tax-planning decisions.
Reminding clients that certain early distributions after receiving a Saver’s Match could have additional tax consequences.
For a deeper dive into Notice 2026-48, please see our companion article, “IRS Releases Preliminary Guidance on Saver’s Match Contributions.”
What it means: The IRS’s optional sample rollover forms and procedures may streamline the rollover process, but an advisor’s guidance remains important.
The IRS issued Notice 2026-49 on August 12, 2026, providing sample forms and proposed procedures designed to simplify and standardize direct rollovers between retirement plans and IRAs. The guidance implements SECURE Act 2.0, section 324, and applies to:
Rollovers from one eligible retirement plan to another; and
Rollovers from an eligible retirement plan to an IRA and vice versa.
It does not apply to IRA-to-IRA transfers or rollovers. Use of the Notice 2026-49 forms creates no current safe harbor.
The sample forms included in the notice are designed to reduce the amount of participant information that must be exchanged and to create a more predictable process for determining whether the receiving arrangement will accept a rollover. Use of the IRS sample forms and proposed procedures is optional. A plan administrator, recordkeeper, IRA custodian, or other institution may continue to use its existing procedures.
For advisors, the significance goes beyond paperwork. Rollovers frequently involve coordination among a participant, former employer, recordkeeper, and IRA provider or employer plan. A standardized process could reduce delays, rejected checks, incomplete forms, and other administrative problems.
Advisors can help by:
Asking recordkeepers and IRA providers whether they plan to use the new IRS forms and what documentation they require.
Distinguishing direct rollovers covered by Notice 2026-49 from IRA-to-IRA transfers.
Determining whether to provide rollover education pursuant to Field Assistance Bulletin 96-1 or rollover advice.
Comparing fees, services, investment options, distribution options, creditor protections, and other relevant differences before recommending that assets be withdrawn from an employer plan.
Documenting the reasons for rollover recommendations, including considerations involving Roth and pre-tax assets.
For a deeper dive into Notice 2026-49, please see our companion article, “IRS Issues Guidance on Retirement Plan Direct Rollovers.”
What it means: Pooled Employer Plans (PEPs) have clearly moved beyond the launch stage, with hundreds of Pooled Plan Providers (PPPs) in the market. Evaluating the individual PEP and PPP rather than assuming all pooled arrangements are the same is essential.
The Department of Labor’s 2026 Pooled Employer Plan Bulletin provides an updated look at pooled employer plans (PEPs) and pooled plan providers (PPPs). As of December 31, 2024, 167 PPPs had registered with the DOL. Based on statistical year 2023 Form 5500 data, the DOL identified 269 PEP filings, of which 244 reported participants, assets, or participating employers with account balances. The figures reflect 2023 Form 5500 data, not the current 2026 market.
Those PEPs reported approximately:
1.2 million total participants;
484,000 participants with account balances; and
$11.8 billion in retirement plan assets.
The market remains diverse. Most PPPs operated one PEP, but approximately 32 percent of operating PPPs offered more than one. One PPP operated 26 separate PEPs.
PEPs also vary dramatically in employer count. More than 60 percent reported 10 or fewer participating employers, while the largest PEP reported more than 33,000.
PEPs can shift many administrative and fiduciary functions from an adopting employer to the PPP. They do not, however, eliminate the employer’s fiduciary responsibilities. Among other things, the employer remains responsible for prudently selecting and monitoring the PPP and other responsibilities retained under the arrangement.
For employers considering a PEP, advisors should compare:
PPP fiduciary responsibilities and the responsibilities retained by the employer.
Investment options, oversight, and participant services.
Fees and allocation of expenses.
Payroll integration and plan-design flexibility.
Procedures, restrictions, and costs associated with leaving the PEP.
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report has put additional attention on how plan sponsors and service providers use retirement plan participant information other than for plan purposes. In Retirement Plans: Department of Labor Guidance Could Mitigate Privacy Risks for Participants, the GAO reviewed the privacy disclosures of retirement plan service providers and found that some providers use participant personally identifiable information (PII) and other information to market financial products and services and, in some circumstances, share or sell PII to third parties.
Plan sponsors routinely provide participant information to recordkeepers, asset managers, and other service providers to administer retirement plans. GAO concluded that more specific DOL guidance could clarify the appropriate use and sharing of that data and recommended that the DOL provide additional participant-data privacy guidance. The DOL neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation.
The issue complements—but is different from—cybersecurity. Cybersecurity primarily asks whether information is adequately protected from unauthorized access. The GAO report raises the additional question of what an authorized service provider may properly do with PII after receiving it.
Advisors assisting with service-provider reviews could ask:
What participant information is collected and how may it be used?
May participant data be used to cross-sell products or services or shared with affiliates or third parties?
What participant consent, if any, is required?
What does the service agreement provide regarding ownership, use, retention, destruction, and return of participant data?
Does the plan’s cybersecurity and vendor review address data-use practices as well as data security?
For a deeper dive into the GAO’s report and use of participant PII see our companion article, “GAO: Department of Labor Guidance Could Mitigate Privacy Risks for Participants.”
What it means: December 31, 2026, is more than an amendment-signing deadline. It is a year-end operational checkpoint to ensure plan documents and actual administration are aligned in the wake of numerous law changes.
For many retirement plan sponsors, December 31, 2026, is a significant document amendment deadline. In general, sponsors of nongovernmental qualified retirement plans that are not applicable collectively bargained plans must amend their plans by December 31, 2026, for applicable provisions of the SECURE Act 1.0, CARES Act, related law changes, and SECURE Act 2.0. Sponsors using preapproved plan documents should expect to receive amendment packages from their document providers if they have not already.
The same general December 31, 2026, amendment deadline applies to nongovernmental 403(b) plans other than certain collectively bargained plans. Applicable collectively bargained plans generally have until December 31, 2028, while governmental qualified plans and public-school 403(b) plans generally have until December 31, 2029.
The amendment deadline is important, but it is only part of the compliance exercise. During the period before formal amendments are adopted, sponsors must operate their plans consistent with applicable statutory requirements and the intended plan terms. This makes the amendment process an opportunity to compare plan documents with actual administration.
Advisors could help sponsors prepare by:
Confirming who will prepare the required amendments and when the amendment package will be available.
Reviewing discretionary SECURE 2.0 provisions the sponsor has implemented.
Comparing payroll and recordkeeping practices with the intended plan provisions.
Reviewing affected provisions, including automatic enrollment, Roth provisions, long-term part-time employee eligibility, and distributions.
Ensuring executed amendments are retained and not assuming the 2027 extension for IRA, SEP, and SIMPLE IRA documents also extended the deadline for qualified plans.
What it means: Investment results matter, but ERISA fiduciary prudence is fundamentally process-driven. Whatever the Supreme Court ultimately decides, a well-documented selection and monitoring process remains critical.
A pending U.S. Supreme Court case could have important implications for ERISA investment litigation. In Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee, participants challenged investment decisions involving hedge funds, private equity, and other alternative investments in Intel retirement plans.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in January 2026. In July, the United States filed an amicus brief supporting Intel and arguing, among other things, that allegations based on investment performance should involve a meaningful comparison with investments having reasonably comparable objectives and strategies.
The case is significant because ERISA does not guarantee investment performance. Fiduciaries are judged based on prudence, loyalty, and the process used to make and monitor investment decisions. Alternative investments add another layer to that process. Comparisons can be more difficult when investments differ in liquidity, diversification, risk, strategy, valuation, and fees. The Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument for October 6, 2026.
Investment committees and advisors should consider whether the fiduciary file documents:
Why the investment was selected and its purpose within the portfolio.
Applicable fees, expenses, liquidity, and valuation considerations.
Risk and diversification characteristics.
The benchmark used to evaluate performance and why that benchmark is appropriate.
Ongoing monitoring and the reasons for retaining or replacing the investment.
For a deeper dive, please see our companion article, DOL Brief in Supreme Court Intel Case Sides with Defendants, Emphasizing Importance of Meaningful Benchmark in Performance Litigation.