In this episode our Director of Audit, Kim Moore, sits down with Karen Hill, our 401(k) Senior Auditor talk about the Secure Act 2.0 and the latest updates as the bill is now for the Senate's approval. Kim and Karen will discuss the major provisions of the Secure Act 2.0 and its implications for 401k plan participants and plan sponsors.
Summit CPA Group has merged with Anders CPAs + Advisors! Visit our website to learn more about our 401(k) process and pricing: https://anderscpa.com/401k-audits/
"It does have some pretty big implications for those of you that either are a 401k plan participant or if you are the planned sponsor of a 401k plan, we wanted to kind of keep you updated so this doesn't hit you as a surprise because we do believe it's going to become law. It's just a matter of when and exactly what's included in the bill" - Kim Moore
The finer details in this episode:
Episode resources
Secure Act 2.0
Kim Moore: Welcome everyone this is Kim and we are here for the 401k audit CPA success show, our monthly podcast recording.
I have Karen Hill with me, the audit manager here at Summit/Anders and I'm Kim Moore. I'm the audit director here. As we talked about in our last podcast, last month, Summit was purchased by Anders. And so we merged together at the beginning of April.
As we're recording this, it's now about the middle of May. So we've been a part of Anders for a month and a half. We're gonna continue our podcast. If anybody was wondering about that, the podcast will continue just as before the same 401k audit. Kind of presentation as before, but we're hoping to get some additional folks to join us for these podcasts going forward.
So, but for this month you have Karen and myself. The topic this month, we're gonna talk about the Secure Act 2.0. If you have been listening to our podcasts over the past year or so, there was a secure act that was passed back. Believe it was the end of 2019 became effective in 2020. And it's Congress's way of trying to kind of update retirement plans for the future, knowing that find benefit plans went away for the most part for most employed folks. And so they don't really want people to just be relying on social security as their only income source when they get to retirement. And they know most people wanna retire. So the alternative really is an employer sponsored 401k contributory plan.
There's other things out there, and we're not gonna get in all of the different structures. We're gonna focus for this podcast, pretty much 401k contributory plans. But anyways, that secure act 1.0, it was actually labeled Secure Act, which I believe is setting every community up for retirement. I believe it's what that stands for.
And it really changed some rules to make it easier for people to get into plans. Extended RMD rules. There were a few other things that were baked into that secure act, but they didn't get all the provisions that they wanted with the first go round, which is pretty common for congressional bills.
So they're doing a kind of a second go round here to try to get the remaining items that they really want to get included into the bill, but it'll be a separate bill. And, and it's basically called Secure Act 2.0 Little bit about kind of where we are with this. The house of representatives actually has been working on this and they passed a bill.
It was actually HR 2954 if you wanna look that up. It was passed at the end of March of this year. and it is now over with the Senate to take a look at it. Senate is, you know, the usual process they're gonna review, come up with their differences and then they'll either pass the bill back.
Couple different things could happen. They could pass the bill back. They could do it, an entirely different bill, or they could agree to send it for a vote, which probably won't happen. There'll probably be some changes. And then they'll go through a reconciliation process. So it's not law yet, not a done deal, but we wanted to talk about what's in the major provisions of the bill, because it does have some pretty big implications for those of you that either/are a 401k plan participant.
Or if you are the planned sponsor, most importantly of a 401k plan, we wanted to kind of keep you updated so this doesn't hit you as a surprise because we do believe it's going to become law. It's just a matter of when and exactly what's included in the bill. So I'm gonna start off with what I think is kind of the biggest piece of it, is requiring companies. Now there's a couple caveats here that we'll come back to, but for the most part companies that are big enough are going to have to have a 401k plan and they're gonna have to do autoenroll. Karen, you wanna talk a little bit about what auto-enroll is. How just in general, how that works.
Karen Hill: Oh, auto enroll means that when the participant, when the employee becomes eligible to participate in the plan, they are automatically enrolled at a certain percentage unless they opt out.
Usually the percentage is 3% and usually, and they also usually give them a little bit of a cushion. So if it's, if you're eligible upon higher, they'll go ahead and put you in the plan, but usually you have a little bit of a cushion, like, okay, you need to go and opt out.
But usually it's not very long, a couple of weeks, maybe a month. They give you time to opt out. And then, if you don't opt out, they go ahead and automatically enroll you and you'll have the deferrals be taken out. Participants paycheck. And this really does work to increase the enrollment because just like a lot of employees don't enroll in the plan because.
I don't wanna call it laziness, but, you know, it's just kind of like whatever it seems to be the same thing with the opt out with the, the plan that we've audited that have had automatic enrollments. It very often you'll, they have a lot of participants that are, that they're contributing at that auto enroll rate and into the default fund.
Kim Moore: mm-hmm yeah, yeah. I mean, that's been our, that's been our experience, so I think what Congress wants to happen once this goes into effect probably will happen. I think there will be a lot of people that will be participating in a plan that wouldn't have otherwise probably companies will offer plans that hadn't offered them before, because they'll be required to mm-hmm the Opt out or the auto enrollment requires it to start per the current law.
And I keep in mind, everything we're gonna say here is not law yet. So it's subject to change obviously, as it goes through, it's reviewed by the Senate and then the reconciliation process. But the current law requires it to start at a minimum of 3% of salary. So that would mean a company starting up a new plan or if they already have a plan that doesn't have auto enrollment, they'd have to put this feature in.
They would have to start it at 3%. So 3% of an employee's salary would automatically be deferred every pay period up to 10%. So they could actually start it at a higher number. They could start at five, you know, start right at five instead of three or six up to 10%. It also requires an auto increase feature.
So if you started at 3%, that's fine. First year, the next year, then you're gonna auto enroll folks at the 3%. But those that were in the plan for you're gonna get bumped up to 4%, you know, and the same thing next year would bump up another percent up to 10%. Now, obviously, you know options within that.
So if you wanna start at five, that's fine. And then you'd opt to roll everybody up to 6%. The next year you could have an option available for people to contribute more than 10%. So it's not like it's limiting you to 10%, but it's just saying you have to do within this three to 10 and you have to bump it up till it gets to the 10%.
You know, you can, you can do other things as well, just like you could today. So you could have. Flat dollar amount contributed. I mean, there's other things you can do that you can do today. This is just saying you have to at least do this. It does provide in the provision, as Karen mentioned, the opt out option that is included in the law.
So. At any point in time, if an employee participant said, I don't wanna participate anymore, they can opt out at any time. They can also opt out of that increase. So if you start them at 3%, the next year you're gonna bump 'em up to four. The employee feels like 4 percent's too much. Either I wanna stop contributing, or I wanna go back to the three, they can opt out of the increase as well.
So that is allowed in the law. Which I think is a good thing because 3% of a salary is a lot different. At least it feels like to me than 10%. I don't. Yeah, I know it's not a lot, but it kinda sounds like a lot. Feels like a lot. Yeah.
Karen Hill: Well, I, and I think, you know, with the increase, you know, usually there's been, usually people they get increases in salaries.
In wages every year as well. So if you're only bumping it up by 1%, it's a good way to give them up to that 10%, which is a better number, higher number. So they actually have some decent savings for retirement without it coming. I mean, cuz like yeah, a 3%, they probably aren't gonna notice as much, especially since it comes out before tax, it's gonna lower, lower their tax burden.
So, you know, it's not gonna seem like a whole lot with 3%. If you started with 10%, that might so, right.
Kim Moore: Yeah.
Karen Hill: increases one way is a good way to get people to save more.
Kim Moore: You know, and I totally agree with you, Karen. I think you know, as you get your salary increase each year, it's more doable, I guess yeah.
Better. I'm not way to put it that you know, you may not feel it as much because you're getting an increase. It'll just be less of an increase because part of it will go to that increase in the 401k. Yeah. So yeah, it is gonna be interesting to see how it kind of all pans out. If it ends up, you know, staying this way and you know, how people react to it.
I'm not, I'm not sure. I mean, we've seen it kind of both ways. We've seen certainly it increases participation. We've also seen plans where they have a lot of fairly low compensated employees. Mm-hmm and so they're only putting in a few dollars at a time. And so it really, you know, you can end the year of full participation, especially if there's no match.
With only a hundred dollars or something safe, which is a hundred dollars better than zero, but still it's, it's not very much, it's not, not what you'd wanna live on. So
Karen Hill: no, no. And you know, yeah. And you really, though, even starting with 3% and it, of course it depends on how much the person makes, but I recall the saying that if you save $2,000 a year, which really isn't a whole lot.
When you think about it for your first 10 years, like in your twenties, and didn't put in anything more, you end up with more at retirement than if you start in your thirties.
Kim Moore: Right?
Karen Hill: Right. Because of the con. So this would be a good way, especially some of those younger workers who don't think about it, get them started.
And then they're not scrambling as much when they get into their forties and fifties and thinking, oh, wow. I haven't saved anything for retirement.
Kim: Right, right. Yeah. Very good point. Another part of the law that will help, I think, smaller employers mm-hmm there is, there is an opt out or a, you know, excluded employers.
If you're a very small employer you don't. You're not required to participate in this. And then there's also exclusions for things like churches. And I think other not-for-profits are, are excluded. Yeah. So again, it's 10 or fewer employees for small businesses. And those that part could change.
Karen Hill: That could be so one, the part of the provision that changes what is a small employer.
Kim Moore: Right, right. Yeah. So I guess watch this space if you're a really small company and you're thinking, oh no, I'm now gonna have the administrative fees associated with this plan. So I guess watch this space.
We'll keep you posted and. I do regular blog postings each week. And definitely this is something I'm following. So as more information comes out or if that changes, certainly be putting that in the blog. So watch that because I agree with Karen that those details are the things that'll probably change.
Mm-hmm they do have a provision in the law though, for those folks that are gonna have to set up a plan and they're relatively small. There's credits, tax credits that can go back to the employer for setting up the plan. And again, I think these details will all probably change, but currently it's a thousand dollars tax credit not a deduction, but a credit in the first year that you're setting the plan up.
And then it. You get continuing credits over the next few years. I think it goes over five years currently which helps to offset the administrative costs of setting up a plan because it's not so expensive and there's a lot of cheaper options out there for employers to set up brand new plans, especially if they're smaller, you don't have to go with a big fancy you know.
Big plan with a lot of bells and whistles, you can do a pretty simple, straightforward plan. Not a lot of ongoing fees and costs. Just depending on how you set it. But there are set up fees initially. So this is meant to help offset that, to help you. You know, so it's not this big burden on the employer, so, so I think that's a good thing.
Another option that is currently in this law, which they've been talking about for a long time is that they are really worried about part-time employees. Mm-hmm traditionally part-time employees are or can be not always, but can be excluded kind of from the get go with participation in a 401k plan.
A lot of employers just kind of exclude them if you don't have 30 hours a week or some, so many hours a year. There's usually some type of eligibility requirement around hours. And the part-time people usually don't hit enough hours to allow them to participate. So big concern on the congressional side with that, especially for longer term part-time employees.
So not somebody who's working part-time. You know, maybe a seasonal employee that only comes every so often and helps you out, but a more permanent part-time employee, which of course, you know, in our workforce, we have a lot of those right now. I have two working for me on the team currently. So this provides for those folks to be included in the plan.
Now details around that we don't really have yet, and probably we'd need to see the regulations that the department of labor would put in regarding this, but something to keep in mind. And we mentioned this on our Secure Act prior podcast. If you have a lot of seasonal and or part-time employees, You're probably gonna have to start tracking their hours and, you know, keep it on a spreadsheet or something, because once this goes in, it may do a look back period.
And obviously if you haven't been keeping track of that that could be a lot of work for you. So just something to keep in mind, more details to come on that. We talked about this also this has been kind of a fluctuating area RMDs required, minimum distributions. I dunno, Karen, you wanna give a little bit of basic information about what RMDs are
Karen Hill: required minimum distributions are for those participants that have reached, well, it used to be 70 and a half. I believe with the Cares act, it went up to 71 and a half, or you could be suspended even for a year. But mm-hmm , once you reach that age, you need to at least start taking a minimum amount out of your 401k account. So usually whoever the third party administrator is, they usually can help you keep track of that.
And they're well aware that that's going on, but that's, that's one of the distribution that's required. And they're talking about raising the age for various reasons. I mean, obviously, everybody used to retire 62-65. Now there's more people, the retirement age is more like 67, so it makes sense to raise that age.
Kim Moore: Yeah. Yeah. And people are living longer. People are working longer. So You know, you can always take a distribution earlier. This isn't saying that if you wanna retire at 65 and you, again, depending on your plan provisions, of course mm-hmm there's no, this isn't gonna restrict saying, well, no, you gotta wait till 75.
You, you can certainly take it earlier. Mm-hmm but this is saying those required distributions won't have to start. as early as they would have. And that, the other thing with this is that because people are living longer, once they're starting to draw down out of their 401k, they are going to need it to last longer.
Mm-hmm so that's a concern is that they don't want you to get into an older age and now you've used up all your money. Yeah. You had a great plan, but you lived a little longer and you outlived your savings. So, that's another reason why that's in there. It's raising it up to 75 again, watch this space because this, this had been all over the place as Karen kind of mentioned it's it was one number and then it was another number and then they suspended it for COVID and then it, so it's, it's kind of like what's, what's the age limit today on the RMD.
So we'll see how it ends up. I think once this gets finalized, it'll probably settle at whatever age that they end up with. Something else happens with another pandemic or something. But I think if it ends up at 75, yeah, we are. We're all hoping that, but if it ends up at 75 and it'll probably settle there, it'll probably stay at 75 for a while.
I don't think they're gonna be jerking it around. Like they have the last few years, but currently it's set at 75 in this law, it does have a. Kind of a provision that it doesn't go to 75 immediately. Its kind of staggered over the next few years, assuming that this gets passed into law this year.
So it's not an immediate change. Just, they're trying to take in consideration those people that are, you know, in this age bracket, they don't wanna just make a big fall off change for them. They're trying to give them some time to adjust to it. And as well as the providers, because it, it falls a lot on your record keeper as to their tracking it and being able to, to make sure they're in compliance.
So, we'll watch the space more to come on this, but definitely if you are getting closer to retirement, something that you'll probably wanna keep track of, cuz it will definitely impact you over the next few years. The this new proposed law would increase, catch up amounts to $10,000.
For those age 50 and older, I mean, currently there are catch up pro allowances and most plans allow for catch up mm-hmm . So once you get to age 50, you can start contributing more anticipating that you're gonna be, you know, retiring over the next, you know, 10, 20 years. . And so this is allowing you to contribute even a little more which I think is a good thing.
And of course not forcing you, this is totally optional, just as ketchup is today. It just allows that amount to get higher. So, I think that's good.
Karen Hill: And that's a pretty big jump. It's increased in the past. Usually it's been $500 a year though. Mm-hmm so this is a big, a fairly large jump.
Kim Moore: Yeah.
And I, and I think for those who, you know, are on the higher end of the conversation, it's, it's a good thing. Mm-hmm, , you know, letting you put more money in as you get closer, if you can, I think is a good thing. Yes. This next thing has been a big topic of conversation. And I mean, you've probably heard student loans in the news a lot and the problems with younger folks and their ability to repay those student loans and the debt that they accumulate.
So there is a provision in the plan around student loans. It's an attempt to do a couple of things, one to help the student loan situation just to folks to continue paying on their student loans. But one of the things that the congressmen were men and women were hearing is that for younger folks, it was very difficult for them to start contributing to 401k Plans.
Because any money that they had had to go towards repaying their loan. So they didn't have any extra money to be able to make a deferral into a 401k plan. And they felt like, well, you know, we can't really fix that problem so much, but the provision in this law allows an employer to factor into their plan, a provision that they can,the individual, the younger, I mean, this could be anybody.
Focused on younger people, they can make their payments towards their student loan. Just like they're doing today. Now, administratively how this is exactly gonna work. I don't know. But the employer then would give them credit as a deferral, not money, but just a credit into their plan. As a deferral amount for that student loan payment, and then they would match whatever the match setup is in the plan.
So, as an example, if I was going to contribute $500 this month as a deferral into my plan, and let's say the employer matched half of that, so they would put into $150. So by the end of that month, I would have an addition to my plan account of $750. The person that was doing the loan, they would make that $250 loan payment separately would not go into the plan.
That would just happen just like it does today. The employer would look at that and say, you made your $500 loan repayment. So I'm gonna match that to the $250, just like they would have had that then an elective deferral. So it's a way for the younger folks. Or as long as you're making loan repayments, I guess, to continue to at least, you know, have a 401k plan and have contributions going in, it would be the match component only.
And it would be to whatever match level, you know, the plan allows for, obviously this is not dictating what that match formula is going to be. That's up to the employer and there would be the same match formula that they're using for everybody else, but it would allow younger folks to accumulate some money in their 401k account.
But I know it's been a real hot button for a lot of folks. They really, they really like this. So I don't know, Karen, any, any thoughts on that?
Karen Hill: I get, this is gonna probably be a little bit more difficult for the employer administratively. I guess what they'll have to do is do almost like they're gonna, cause the loan payments are not made anywhere with the payroll system.
So it's not something that they can easily track. They're gonna have to submit. The evidence that they made the loan payments. I don't know if that's,
Kim Moore: You know yeah. I agree with how it's gonna work. Yeah.
Karen Hill: It's great, it's a great concept. yeah. Yeah. Which , I guess it should surprise me that they have an idea and really don't under
Kim Moore: can't don't know how it's gonna work.
Yeah. They haven't, they haven't figured that part out and Congress won't, they'll just turn that over to the department of labor and then the department will probably pun it over to the record keepers and record keepers will be. Crap. Now I gotta figure out how I'm gonna make this work. Yeah. I don't know.
I don't know. I mean, I would think,I guess I was very fortunate. I didn't have to have a student loan, so I don't really know. I'm assuming the loan payments are the same every month, so maybe you submit documentation up front and then, you know, you would have to tell 'em if it changes and then they would just every month.
Give you credit, I guess, and, you know yeah. And do a match based on whatever that amount was. But yeah. I don't know. I don't know how mean, you're absolutely right. They're, they're completely separate processes. So I mean, you know, you're not, it's not through payroll and it's not through the record keeper at all.
It's completely different.
Karen Hill: And it's not even like when, when I had, I did have student loans, they weren't very much, but I paid by check mm-hmm they don't pay by check anymore.
Kim Moore: Right. Yeah.
Karen Hill: So it's not like I can just show a cancel check. See, I made my loan payment.
Kim Moore: right? Yeah. I don't know. I don't know if maybe you could give them a, maybe they'll require a bank statement at the end of the year and they'll do a match at the end of the year.
Yeah. Based on that or something. Yeah. I don't know. I don't know how they'll structure it. It's gonna be interesting. To see how it goes. I, like we've said, I don't think Congress has, you know, they don't think through the details of anything. They just passed it law and then it's everybody up to everybody else to administer it.
So I guess watch this space. This was talked about with the first Secure Act and it was in various stages of the bill and then it got pulled out. Like I said, it's a hot button issue and it's, there's other kinds of things factoring into it. And so they just couldn't come to an agreement.
And so it got pulled out. It's back again. so we'll see if you know, if it ends up in the final bill or not, I don't know. I can see the reasoning behind it and I can see why it's very attractive and it could be very attractive to employers because I think if you could offer to younger employees who, you know, we all know it's hard to get talent right now.
So, I mean, this would be one more thing that you could offer to somebody that, you know, not only, you know, are you gonna get a job and that will help you to, to pay off those student loan debt, but also we're gonna match against. That might, you know, set you up a little bit ahead of another competing employer for talent.
So I can see why it's popular, obviously popular with anybody who has this debt and you know, it can allow them to have a participant account, but yeah, the administration part is interesting. Yeah. Kind of a challenge. So we'll see how that goes. A couple of other smaller components, which probably are not as interesting to most folks.
It is going to allow exchange traded funds in variable annuity option plans. Not gonna spend too much time talking about that, cuz it's kind of specific. But exchange traded funds are popular. And as our variable annuity options and there's whole schools of thought on variable annuities good and bad.
And I don't, I don't wanna get into that here. But that is, that is something in there. Again, that's been talked about before. So we'll see if that ends up in the final bill or not. Last thing I wanted to kind of talk about here as an option. This is an interesting one. And one that we kind of struggle with in our audits quite often is finding lost participants.
And which sounds strange, how can you have a lost participant, but I don't know. Karen, you wanna talk a little bit about what that means? What is that?
Karen Hill: That is when you try to have lots of plans, have a mandatory cash out. If you, or account balances less than a thousand dollars, less than 5,000 seems to be the most common one.
They force you out and send you a check or they roll over your account. Well, if they send a check to somebody and, but they don't have a good address on file and they can't find you, then you're lost and that money ends up staying in the plan. And the whole reason for having the mandatory cash out is to get those small account balances out of the plan. So that's what it is. And, you know, there's some, you know, some people, they move around a lot, so they, it's really hard to keep track of them as they move from place to place.
Kim Moore: Mm-hmm and yeah, I think, this is gonna get more important too, as that auto roll feature comes in.
You know, employers are interested in their current employees. So a loss participant is not someone who works for them. They can locate them. That's not a problem. It's once the person leaves employment with the firm. Yeah. And you know, they could have worked for you 20 years ago and you think of all the things that happen.
I mean, the person could have died for all, you know, and the funds need to go to a beneficiary and good luck finding a beneficiary. A lot of times you don't have beneficiaries on file. So it can get very complicated. If you've had a lot of turnover you've not kept track of those people. You're supposed to have procedures in place within the Plan to keep track of everyone, not just the people that still work for you because you're supposed to be giving them notices. They're supposed to get disclosures and information about the plan, and, but we all know from, you know, real life experience that that doesn't always happen. And so it's very common in our audits for us to see, especially as Karen mentioned, if they're issuing paper checks Those checks are gonna get bounced and come back because they never get cashed.
And so the record keeper doesn't really know what to do with them. They end up going all kinds of places into forfeiture, and then they can get used up for other things they shouldn't be. And you still owe these individuals the amount of money that should have been in their account that they never got because they never cashed the check.
We've also seen examples and it's surprising to me. You know, if it was a $10 check or something I could see where you just, you can't be bothered to take it to the bank and get it cash. But I mean, we've seen large checks, large checks, never get cash, which I, I, for life I can't understand, but you know, tens of thousands of dollars of checks that, that the person, just for whatever reason doesn't cash them.
So this, this can be a big problem and it will cost you money if those funds are still sitting there. And if it is, you have a record keeper who puts it back in the participant account, I mean, you can end up with hundreds of people that are sitting in this state and you're paying the fee for those plans.
Those accounts, you know, you're paying administrative fees for it. So it costs you money. And it becomes an administrative mess. If you ever wanna close out the plan or you wanna transfer the plan into a different option, mm-hmm, you wanna move it from one provider to another, this is all gonna rear, it's ugly head at, at those points.
So and with auto enrollment, it becomes an even bigger problem because you've got an awful lot of people. With very potentially very potential responses.
Karen Hill: Yes. Especially in those industries where the turnover is very high
Kim Moore: And they're and the pay is not high. Yeah. So, we've seen plans that we audit where they'll have hundreds of people with account balances of $5, $10, $15, $7.
You know, they don't keep track of those people because they've just, they're. Turnover is crazy. And now you've got all these really small balances, but you can't just sheet the funds back to the state. It's not that simple, it's become a real problem. Getting rid of those people, getting rid of those funds, moving them out, especially like I said, if you wanna terminate plan transfer it you get purchased by another firm.
It becomes a real nightmare administratively to work that out. So the provision in this proposed law, which again, they've been talking about for a long time, is to require the DOL to set up a searchable database of employees. So again, don't know how this would all work, but somehow you would be loading employee information into this database.
I don't know if it would link with social security or there's a pension benefit guarantee. Yeah. Which a lot of people aren't gonna be in there, but there, this thought process is to have this database so that if Karen left our employment and 20 years down the road, I've gotta pay out Karen and I can't find her.
I could go look in this database and, oh, there she is. And, then I could make arrangements to get her the funds you know, that she would need, I don't, you know, realistically. Is that gonna work? I, I don't know. Kind of depends on how they set it up. It's certainly not gonna help with the beneficiary situation, cuz I don't think it's got any provision for, you know, if Karen's not here anymore now, who do I give the money to?
So I, you know, I don't know. It's a good idea. It's a good thought. Is it really workable? I don't know. I can also see there's gonna be privacy issues. If you've got some government managed database, we've heard about that on, you know, for a lot of other different things.
Karen Hill: That's a lot of people are gonna like that.
Kim Moore: Yeah. Yeah. It's probably not gonna be popular with some groups. So. So, yeah, I don't know, like I said, this has been talked about before, this may not end up in the final bill, but it is in the current house representatives bill. So we'll kind of watch the space and see how that goes. With that, I talked a little bit about where this goes next.
It's sitting with the Senate right now. They are discussing it. So it's not like it's dead or anything. It's a current topic. It can go down the path of either just getting voted on as is. That's probably the least likely option. Most likely option is they do a separate bill and then they have to reconcile the two or they propose changes to it, which again, then would have to be reconciled.
Of course, then it's gotta get voted on by the Senate and whatever, or maybe go back to the house for vote, just depending on if there's reconciliation, ultimately the bill then would have to get signed by the president. Currently president Biden, of course expectations are high that this is gonna get done in 2022.
So we're not quite halfway through the year yet. So we'll see if. If that works out, but most of the people watching this say those people that lobby, you know, for things. So I don't know if that’s providers insurance go. I'm not sure who the lobbyists are lobbying for, but they're really pushing for this.
I suppose. because it means more business for those folks that administer plans would be my guess mm-hmm . But anyway, so really pushing for it. Congress is really anxious to act. This is an area that's very important to them because of the issues with social security. So we do expect progress on this.
So we'll keep watching this space. Like I said, keep watching our podcast, keep watching for our blog posts. We'll keep you posted. If any of this peaked your interest. You know, we'll, we'll keep you updated on what's going on with it. Karen, any last thoughts before we wrap up today?
Karen Hill: Not that I can think of. It'll be interesting to see what happens and if, see some of those provisions that seem to be a little difficult. That might be more difficult to administer or if those make it through or if somebody mentions, Hey ‘Wait a minute, what about this?’
Kim Moore: yeah. Yeah. And the, and the Senate tends to have a very different attitude towards things in the house.
So yeah, so I expect there will definitely be changes before we see any kind of final document here. So with that, I think we're gonna wrap up for today. I do wanna throw out I'm gonna give you my personal email, which is a little different. It's Kim K I M at it's Anders, A N D E R S cpa.com.
If you send it to the previous email address, it still works, but that's the current address. It's either Kim or K Moore. So letter K, M O O R E or kim@anderscpa.com. Do you have any suggestions for future podcasts? Topics you'd like us to talk about, questions about what we talked about today.
You'd like to keep posted, updated, you know, posted on what's going on here at Anders or just in general with the audit group, have 401k audit questions. Feel free to give me. An email and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have or consider topics for our next podcast. With that, I think we'll wrap up and thank you everyone for listening.