BLOG

The Challenge Sometimes the most expensive retirement plan mistakes aren't dramatic. They're quiet. A former client of ours changed retirement plan providers following an acquisition several years prior. On the surface, everything appeared to be operating normally after moving to the new provider: employees continued making contributions to the plan, the plan’s investments remained in place, and the business continued its normal operations. Then another merger opportunity came along. As part of their due diligence process, the buyers reviewed the retirement plan. What they found immediately raised concerns. The annual Form 5500 filings required by ERISA law had not been submitted for several years. That also meant that none of the required compliance testing had been completed, and routine administrative responsibilities had also gone undone. What had started as a routine review quickly became a significant obstacle to completing the business sale. The Hidden Risk Many employers assume that once a retirement plan provider is hired, responsibility for the plan’s ongoing administration has effectively been transferred to that provider. But a plan sponsor is never completely relieved of its responsibility to oversee the plan. Even when outside providers are hired to handle filings, testing, recordkeeping, or other administrative functions, the employer still needs to make sure those responsibilities are being fulfilled. At the same time, there is an important difference between a provider that simply waits for the employer to supply information and one that actively works with the employer to make sure the plan stays on track. In this case, some of the missing work may have resulted from information requested by the provider that was never supplied by the employer. Technically, the employer still had a responsibility to provide that information and ensure the work was completed. But years of required administration should not quietly disappear into a communication gap. A proactive administrator follows up. If the usual contact isn’t responding, they escalate the issue. They make sure the appropriate people understand what is outstanding, why it matters, and what could happen if it isn’t addressed. Retirement plans require ongoing attention every year, including government filings, compliance testing, participant administration, documentation, and, when necessary, operational corrections. When those responsibilities are neglected, the consequences may not become obvious immediately. Instead, problems can accumulate quietly in the background until an IRS inquiry, Department of Labor investigation, audit, or—as in this case—a business transaction suddenly exposes years of unresolved issues. The prospective buyer made it clear that the retirement plan issues needed to be addressed before the transaction could move forward. The Rescue Knowing we had previously administered their plan, the current company leadership contacted us. Our first step was to determine the full scope of the problem. The timing made the situation particularly challenging. This wasn’t simply a retirement plan cleanup project. A business transaction was underway, and the company needed answers quickly. We assembled a team to determine the full scope of the problem and begin developing a path forward. Because we have deep experience with taking over neglected plans, we were able to separate perceived problems from actual compliance issues and reconstruct the plan's history. In reviewing the prior documentation, we identified exactly which administrative functions had been completed and which had been missed. We gathered historical payroll and participant data and developed a comprehensive correction strategy. Having access to historical plan records was especially important. Retirement plan problems may not surface until years after the underlying event, making good record retention critical. If you’re curious about how long to hold onto plan documentation, please see our blog post here . The final correction effort proved to be far more manageable than originally feared. Instead of allowing uncertainty around the retirement plan to continue hanging over the transaction, the employer now understood what had actually gone wrong, what needed to be corrected, and what steps were required to move forward. The Outcome With the correction efforts clarified and a clear roadmap in place, the employer was able to begin correcting the plan and continue moving toward its business transaction. More importantly, the company avoided entering the acquisition process with unresolved retirement plan liabilities hanging over or ruining the deal. The experience also reinforced an important lesson: Changing retirement plan providers doesn't eliminate administrative responsibilities. But it also demonstrated why the quality of the administrator matters. A good retirement plan administrator doesn’t simply process the information that arrives. They help make sure the information arrives in the first place. The Lesson: Oversight Is a Shared Process Employers ultimately have a responsibility to oversee their retirement plans, even when they hire professionals to handle much of the day-to-day work. That doesn’t mean the employer should have to become a retirement plan expert or personally track every filing deadline and compliance requirement. That’s one of the reasons experienced administration matters. A proactive provider should help keep the employer informed, identify missing information, follow up when something is outstanding, and escalate issues before a missed request becomes a missed filing—or several years of missed filings. The cost of failing to do so can extend well beyond an annual administration fee: Missed filings and potential penalties Incomplete compliance testing Corrective work Additional professional fees Delayed business transactions Uncertainty during mergers and acquisitions  By the time those costs appear, they can far exceed whatever might have been saved by choosing a lower-cost service model. That’s why retirement plan administration shouldn’t simply be viewed as paperwork. It should be viewed as an ongoing partnership in managing risk.

The Challenge A business owner came to us after receiving confusing news from their retirement plan actuary. Their Defined Benefit (Cash Balance) Plan had performed exceptionally well over several years; strong investment returns seemed to have created what’s called an overfunded Plan. While it seems like a positive name, an overfunded plan can create excessive and unexpected tax liabilities. So, their actuary recommended terminating the Plan by transferring the excess assets into the company's other Plan, a 401(k)/Profit Sharing Plan, before eventually closing both Plans, a lengthy and complicated process.

As we wrap up the second quarter of 2026, one trend continues to stand out: retirement plans are becoming increasingly specialized. Whether driven by changing regulations, unique workforce structures, or evolving business goals, employers are finding that a one-size-fits-all approach simply doesn't work. This quarter, we explored the unique retirement plan challenges facing several industries—including medical and dental practices, construction companies, architecture and design firms, wineries, and California employers navigating CalSavers requirements. We also continued our series on the hidden risks of low-quality retirement plan services, highlighting how operational complexity, fragmented accountability, and misaligned incentives can create costs that extend far beyond administrative fees. For employers still evaluating their retirement plan options, we also discussed opportunities that many business owners overlook, including the ability to establish retirement plans after filing a tax extension and potentially generate meaningful tax savings. Below is a recap of the articles we published this quarter. We hope they provide practical insights to help you reduce risk, improve plan performance, and make more informed retirement plan decisions.

When considering retirement plans, employers in the private sector are often focused on designing a compliant plan that meets the needs of their owners and employees. While that process for private sector entities can certainly be complex, nonprofit organizations face an entirely different set of considerations, related to funding, staffing, governance, and organizational structure, to name just a few. From seasonal employees and grant-funded positions, to creative executive retention strategies and legacy retirement programs, to smaller budgets serving a mission, there is so much behind the scenes that can affect a nonprofit organization’s ideal retirement plan. At Primark Benefits, we've worked with nonprofit organizations of all sizes throughout our history, from large institutions with hundreds of participants to small community organizations with fewer than 20 employees. In addition, many members of our management team serve on nonprofit boards across the country for organizations and causes near and dear to their hearts. All that combined experience has validated what makes a retirement plan most successful: understanding the organization itself. 

The Mega Backdoor Roth strategy has become one of the most talked-about retirement planning techniques in recent years. Financial publications regularly highlight its potential to help participants contribute far more than the standard deferral limits allow. However, while the strategy can be extremely valuable, an important limitation is often overlooked: due to nondiscrimination testing requirements, some employer-sponsored retirement plans may prevent certain participants from taking full advantage of it. Before assuming a Mega Backdoor Roth will work in your plan, it is important to understand how the strategy operates—and where it can run into trouble.

For years, many California employers viewed CalSavers as something they would “deal with later.” As the state gradually rolled out mandatory retirement program deadlines based on employer size, it was easy for smaller businesses to push the issue down the road. Now, those deadlines have passed, the employee headcount threshold is now ONE— and enforcement is becoming very real.

In Part I of this series , we explored how differences in retirement plan service models can influence risks related to compliance, oversight, and fiduciary areas. In Part II, the focus shifts to a more concrete question: How do these differences ultimately affect the total cost of maintaining a retirement plan over time? While administrative fees are often the most visible expense, they represent only a portion of a plan’s true cost. The broader financial impact—what is often referred to as total cost of ownership—includes the downstream effects of operational efficiency, compliance accuracy, and the ability to fully utilize the plan’s design. 

Medical and dental practices often assume their retirement plan options are relatively straightforward and should be simple to administer. In reality, these businesses frequently present some of the most complex retirement plan challenges among small-to-mid-sized employers.

Construction and contractor businesses often operate with highly dynamic workforces, using seasonal or project-based hires, independent contractors, and the like. The flexibility required in these types of companies—while essential to project-based work—can create significant retirement plan compliance risks. From a retirement plan perspective, these workforce characteristics require careful oversight, as even small administrative inconsistencies can lead to costly compliance failures over time.

Many business owners assume that once tax season passes, the opportunity to reduce last year’s tax bill is gone. That’s often not the case. If you filed a tax extension, you still may have time to establish and fund a retirement plan for the prior year and generate meaningful tax deductions .

As we move further into 2026, one thing is clear: retirement plan administration continues to get more complex and more important to get right. This past quarter, we published several articles addressing common (and costly) misconceptions, emerging compliance challenges, and structural issues we’re seeing across plans of all sizes. Below is a quick summary of what you may have missed, along with a few important reminders for the year ahead.

Due to its seasonal nature, the winery industry operates on a business cycle fundamentally different from most other industries. From harvest and tourism season workforce spikes, to fluctuating tasting room staffing, wineries manage a highly variable employee base throughout the year. In addition, many wineries operate across multiple business lines—production, distribution, and retail, for example—often structured as separate legal entities. Aside from the day-to-day operational complexity these factors imply, they also have important and material implications for a winery’s retirement plan(s), primarily from a federal tax perspective. The complexity inherent in the classification of various employee types introduces unique challenges, which we discuss below.

Architecture and design firms face a unique set of retirement plan design challenges that differ significantly from those of other professional services organizations. Unlike firms with stable, predictable compensation structures, these firms often operate with project-based revenue, fluctuating bonuses, and gradual ownership transitions.

When evaluating retirement plan service providers, business leaders often evaluate pricing, overlooking the importance of quality, or service levels. Obvious service quality questions may include: How quickly can we expect a response when we have questions? Will questions be answered accurately the first time? Will the person responding be at all familiar with our particular plan(s), or will it be a general customer service agent? While these are important considerations in vendor selection decisions in many service industries, there’s an additional layer with retirement plan administration which is a fundamental reality: it is inherently complex. As we explore in the article below, that complexity makes operational errors not just possible, but likely, as proactive oversight is typically not found with low-cost, low-quality retirement plan service providers. 

Most business owners focus most of their attention on revenue and growth, thinking about taxes only when necessary. Yet the structure of a business plays a pivotal role in retirement planning, influencing contribution limits, deductions, and long-term outcomes. Understanding the relationship between entity type and retirement planning is critical to maximizing contributions, deductions, and long-term retirement income.

For many employers, payroll is the operational backbone of the organization. It touches compensation, taxes, benefits, and reporting—so it’s understandable why retirement plans are often bundled there as well. If payroll providers offer a 401(k) solution, it can feel efficient to keep everything under one roof. But efficiency in payroll processing is not the same as effectiveness in retirement plan administration. As retirement plan regulations grow more complex—particularly under SECURE 2.0—many plan sponsors are discovering that payroll platforms simply weren’t designed to handle the interpretive, judgment-based responsibilities required to administer a qualified retirement plan.

If administering a retirement plan feels more complicated than it used to, you’re not imagining it. The changes taking effect in 2026 are a continuation of several years of phased-in legislation, inflation adjustments, and regulatory guidance, much of it stemming from the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022. Add in changes that took effect in 2024 and 2025, and the result is a retirement plan environment with more moving parts than many employers and participants are equipped to manage. Here’s what’s changing, and why 2026 stands out.

There are an estimated two million non-profit organizations in the U.S. This includes public charities, private foundations, and other types of organizations, such as schools and religious institutions. These entities operate under different tax laws and structures than for-profit companies do.

As we wrapped up 2025, one theme came through clearly: small oversights in retirement plans can quickly turn into costly problems—but with the right awareness, they’re often avoidable. In Q4, we focused on the real-world issues plan sponsors are facing today, from understanding updated 2026 contribution limits to navigating new rules like Roth catch-up requirements for higher earners. We also continued our How to “Break” a Retirement Plan series, highlighting the operational and compliance missteps the IRS most commonly finds—and how seemingly minor errors can escalate if left unchecked. At the same time, we challenged a few persistent misconceptions. From the limitations of state-run retirement programs to the risks of relying on “one-size-fits-all” solutions, these articles reinforce an important idea: retirement plans are more nuanced than they often appear, and thoughtful design and administration matter more than ever.  Below is a quick recap of what we covered—and what it means for you and your clients heading into 2026.

As we approach the end of the year, it’s time for employers, plan sponsors, and participants to review the new retirement plan limits for 2026. Each year, the IRS updates the thresholds for contributions, compensation, and catch-up amounts to account for inflation and statutory changes. Staying on top of these numbers is critical for plan compliance, participant communications, and overall retirement strategy.

The Roth Catch-Up Trap: What High Earners Need to Know New rules can create costly surprises for older employees.

Welcome back to our series, How to “Break” a Retirement Plan” In Part I , we examined structural mistakes—the foundational missteps in plan design, contribution handling, and payroll processes that can quietly set a plan on the wrong path. Part II focused on operational blind spots, showing how day-to-day execution errors, from auto-enrollment missteps to mishandling former employees’ accounts, can derail even a well-designed plan. Now, in Part III, we turn our attention to what happens when the IRS takes a closer look. When a retirement plan is audited, the IRS isn’t searching for obscure loopholes; it’s looking for a familiar set of recurring problems. These are the same types of errors that often start small but can grow into significant compliance issues. Understanding where auditors tend to focus can help plan sponsors stay ahead of “issues” before they become “findings”.

At Primark Benefits, we’re committed to helping employers and advisors navigate the complexities of retirement plans with clarity and confidence. This quarter, we’ve published a range of new articles designed to inform, debunk misconceptions, and highlight opportunities—especially those that can still make a difference for this year. Next quarter, we'll be continuing our new How to "Break" a Retirement Plan Series and discussing other timely and important topics.

Operational blind spots that often (or can) trip up plan sponsors Welcome back to our series, How to "Break" a Retirement Plan." In Part I , we explored the structural missteps that often set a plan on the wrong path from day one, such as choosing the wrong type of plan, mishandling contributions, and payroll errors. While getting the foundation right is critical, even the strongest plan can unravel if daily operations aren’t tightly managed. The rules are strict, and mistakes (no matter how seemingly small, or well-intentioned!) can trigger costly corrections or even regulatory scrutiny.

Retirement plans can often feel like an alphabet soup of acronyms, mandates, and evolving state and federal laws. This series seeks to dispel common myths so employers can make better informed decisions. In previous articles, we’ve covered multiple myths at once. However, in Part IV, we’ll focus our efforts on one big misconception. Specifically, we’ll be talking about the idea that cookie-cutter, state-run programs such as CalSavers are “just as good” as custom-designed retirement plans, and the misunderstandings that persist about what state-run retirement programs do (and don’t) offer. 

Welcome to our new series, How to “Break” a Retirement Plan, where we discuss what leads to a retirement plan being categorized as “broken,” ways to fix broken plans, and compliance tips for how to avoid a broken plan in the first place.

Updated December 31, 2025 Retirement plan catch-up contributions allow “older” workers—typically those age 50 and over— to set aside additional funds in their retirement accounts beyond standard annual limits. These extra contributions are an important planning tool for those nearing retirement who want to make up for earlier gaps in saving. Up

Retirement plans can be confusing. Between complex rules, industry jargon, and competing providers, it’s easy for employers to fall into patterns based on assumptions or half-truths. That’s why we created this series: to cut through the noise and help employers make confident, informed decisions. In this third installment, we’re addressing two persistent myths that often lead employers down the wrong path: the idea that payroll providers are the best place to get your plan, and the belief that robo-firms offer a hassle-free alternative. Spoiler: neither is as simple (nor as beneficial) as they seem.

Many companies, especially in the professional services sector—law firms, staffing agencies, engineering and consulting companies, healthcare groups, etc.—are often made up of various employee tiers. For example, in a given company, you might find partners or executives in one segment, professional staff in another, and support staff or hourly workers in yet another. While this tiered structure works well operationally, it can pose challenges relating to retirement plan compliance. In one recent example, the Primark Benefits team helped a client with over 3,500 employees overcome a complicated compliance issue by strategically changing the plan design, first expanding eligibility and then implementing automatic enrollment. Let’s take a look.

At Primark Benefits, we’re committed to helping employers and advisors navigate the complexities of retirement plans with clarity and confidence. This quarter, we’ve published a range of new articles designed to inform, debunk misconceptions, and highlight opportunities—especially those that can still make a difference for 2024. Next quarter, we'll be continuing our "Retirement Plan Myths Busting" Series and featuring a new case study showing how smart plan design solved a tricky compliance issue.

Recent changes in tax law have expanded the flexibility employers have when it comes to establishing and funding retirement plans. If you haven’t yet set up a retirement plan for 2024, we have good news: it might not be too late!

When most people think about retirement plans and pensions, what comes to mind are the big-name players: government systems, large corporations, and the financial institutions that support them such as banks, brokers, and investment firms. These organizations tend to be the visible “faces” of retirement savings, managing assets, issuing account statements, and promoting their expertise through marketing and media. But behind the scenes, there’s another essential player who often goes unnoticed: the Third-Party Administrator, or TPA. In a previous post, we explored how TPAs have emerged to meet vital client needs that large investment firms often overlook, such as tailored plan design, compliance, and personalized service. If you missed that article, click here to read it before diving into today’s topics: The risks of relying solely on asset-driven providers, and why personalized plan administration still matters.

Navigating the numerous retirement plans offered in the marketplace can be confusing, even before considering the many myths surrounding the topic. In our work with clients, we hear about these misconceptions that often steer employers in the wrong direction. In this second installment of an ongoing “myth-buster” blog series, we address three more of the most common retirement plan myths that we hear. For our first installment, click here .

Part I: A Brief History of TPAs When discussing retirement plans and pensions, many people immediately think of public sector entities and large corporations and the financial institutions that support them, such as banks, brokers, and investment firms. These entities tend to appear as the visible “faces” of retirement savings: managing assets, issuing account statements, even airing commercials touting their investment expertise. But what many folks don’t realize is that there's another key player behind the scenes: an entity called a Third-Party Administrator, or TPA. In today’s post, we explore the history of the Third-Party Administrator, beginning with the rise of retirement plans in the U.S.

Navigating the numerous retirement plans offered in the marketplace can be confusing, even before considering the many myths surrounding the topic. In our work with clients, we hear about these misconceptions that often steer employers in the wrong direction. In this first installment of an ongoing “myth-buster” blog series, we address three of the most common retirement plan myths that we hear.

As we wrap up the first quarter of 2025, the team at Primark Benefits has been hard at work for our clients, keeping their retirement plans in compliance. At the same time, we've also been keeping you informed on the latest retirement plan developments, compliance updates, and strategic best practices. In case you missed any of our recent articles, here’s a quick recap of the topics we covered this quarter—from new SECURE 2.0 provisions to record retention strategies and ROTH account considerations.

The ROTH Retirement Account, named for Senator William Roth, was introduced as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The main feature of a ROTH account is that contributions are made with post-tax dollars as opposed to pre-tax; this means that any withdrawals, including earnings on the investments, are tax-free in retirement. This advantage can be particularly attractive for those individuals who anticipate being in a higher tax bracket later in life. However, this needs to be weighed against the uncertainty about whether and for how long this tax status will be truly protected. Can you safely invest in a ROTH account and really expect tax-free withdrawals ten, twenty, or thirty years down the line?

How Long Do I Need to Keep All of This Paperwork? Today, we’re going to share our position on what may seem to be a black-and-white (if not also mundane) retirement plan-related topic - that of record retention. It’s one that we’ve been asked about hundreds of times, and understandably so: For one thing, it involves a lot of files, whether hard copy or electronic. Also, the requirements and guidelines from various government agencies can often seem to conflict. Most importantly, though, it has gotten plenty of well-meaning plan sponsors into some hot water, both financially and legally. There have been numerous instances when it turned out the guidelines weren’t enough to protect employers from costly legal disputes. Read on to find out more. 

Primark Benefits is continually monitoring legislative updates. As such, we are sharing this reminder about the “super catch-up" contributions available under The SECURE 2.0 Act, in effect as of the start of 2025.

For most Americans, the primary source of retirement savings comes through workplace plans. Despite perceptions that others may save through brokerage accounts or insurance policies, statistics show workplace plans are the cornerstone of retirement security. Individuals are 15 times more likely to open and fund a 401(k) at work than to set up an IRA independently, with over 56% of American workers participating in a workplace retirement plan.[1] These plans provide a clear path toward financial stability in retirement and reduce reliance on Social Security alone.

The new Retirement Plan Contribution Limits are official!

Mistakes happen–Here’s how to correct common 401(k) plan errors.

Profit sharing is not just a tool to reduce your company's tax liability; it is also a powerful means of expressing gratitude towards your employees.

Gain actionable insights for optimizing efficiency and compliance through strategic plan analysis. 

The use of automatic features in 401(k) plans has continued to climb in popularity over the past decade. In fact, auto features such as automatic enrollment and auto escalation are considered best practices in 401(k) plan design as ways to help boost participation and employee savings rates.[1] Many large 401(k) retirement plans offer auto features. However, small business plan sponsors have been slower to adopt them as part of their 401(k) plan design. If your company’s retirement plan design doesn’t currently include auto features, and/or if you’re thinking about implementing them, then keep reading.

Key strategies to help employers maximize savings and minimize taxes.

To help prevent potential retirement delays, consider retirement income solutions to boost participants’ confidence in their future financial security.

Balance cost and competitiveness without compromise.

We are excited to deliver the Summer 2024 Newsletter.