Wage Laws to Tax Rules: What’s Really Changing for Employers in 2026

Gene Marks (00:00)

Hey, everybody. Welcome back to THRIVE, the podcast for business owners and business leaders who want to stay ahead of what's happening in the real world and what it means for running a company day to day. I am Gene Marks, and today we are breaking down one of the biggest things that every employer is thinking about heading into the new year, and that's top business regulations and compliance updates for 2026. So, listen, if you missed it, Paychex recently hosted a webinar where I participated as well on the top business regulations of 2026. And we had a ton of great questions that came in from a lot of viewers of this webinar. These are both business owners, managers, employers. The good news is you can still watch the on-demand version and we'll have that link to you in the show notes. But in today's episode, we're going to take it just one step further. Okay. I am joined by Paychex compliance experts. These are the same people that are on the panel during the webinar. They're here to answer some of the most common questions we received during that webinar and to expand on the details that employers really need to understand as we're heading into the new year. So whether you're an HR leader or a payroll professional or a business owner trying to make sure that nothing slips through the cracks, this is a great episode to bookmark and share with your team. So let's get into it.

Announcer (01:16)

Welcome to THRIVE, a Paychex Business Podcast, your blueprint for navigating everything from people to policies to profits. And now your host, Gene Marks.

Gene Marks (01:28)

All right, so first up, we're kicking things off with Bill Goselin, who is a compliance analyst at Paychex. Bill is here to help answer some of the top tax-related questions we received during our regulations webinar, including what employers need to know about no tax on tips and overtime reporting considerations, and a few key updates to keep on your radar for 2026. So here's Bill. So, Bill, we had a great time on the webinar. It was a pleasure speaking with you. I know that you were covering, you know, all sorts of things has to do with like, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime. So we did get questions from the audience. I wanted to, like, throw some of these questions out to you so that we can get some specific answers to them. Okay. So, let's dig into it. You know, so, you know, first question come from one audience viewer. Just wanted you again to break down exactly what the responsibility of the employer is for this whole no tax on tips, no tax on overtime rule.

Bill Goselin (02:26)

Yeah, sure, no problem, Gene. You know, really, from an employer standpoint, it's business as usual. You're still going to withhold all the FICA taxes. You're still going to withhold federal income tax from your employees pay. Again, you know, all these deductions come on the back end. These are when the employees actually file their personal income tax returns, they take these deductions. So from an actual payroll withholding, there's nothing different an employer needs to do. There will be some W2 reporting that you're going to need to do. It is optional for 2025. Recommended, but it will be mandatory for 2026.

Gene Marks (03:06)

All right, that's great. The whole optional thing, Bill, is what's freaking out my clients, because it really does leave it up to the employer to do whatever they feel, I guess, is best for reporting. What are you telling your clients when it comes to reporting on both tips and overtime?

Bill Goselin (03:25)

Yeah, you know, from a Paychex standpoint, we are actually going and we're putting out there the tips and the overtime on the W2s for our employers so that they give their employees the best information possible. We are cautioning them that for this year, but just because of the late guidance from the IRS, they're more estimated for 2025. For 2026, they will be definitely a lot more accurate. So, just using caution that we are going to give you the information, but the employees still probably want to consult with their tax advisor just to ensure they're using the right information.

Gene Marks (04:04)

Okay, that's great. And I do want to reiterate, if you're a customer or client of Paychex or even a reputable, good, you know, payroll service company or an accountant, you very, very much want to lean on them for help this year because your employer is going to be knocking on your door wanting to know those numbers when they start filling out their returns. On tips, Bill, one of our viewers asked what constitutes a qualified tip and which occupations are eligible for this kind of exemption?

Bill Goselin (04:35)

Yeah, that's a great question, Gene. Basically, anything in the service industry, restaurants, bars, anything in hospitality, any industry where you normally receive tips. And the IRS and the Treasury Department, they have put out a list of occupations. They're broken into a bunch of different categories, and it's roughly 70 different occupations that are qualifying for tips and overtime. I'm sorry, not overtime, just for tips. And it's basically anything that's voluntary. Anything that's at the discretion of the customer to provide to the person. So mandatory service charges that a restaurant may charge, whether it's a mandatory tip for parties of X amount or more or anything that they're just automatically adding, if you as a customer don't have the option to choose how much you're giving, that's not considered a qualified tip.

Gene Marks (05:39)

Okay, that's fair enough. I think that's pretty straightforward. I had one client joke to me that he's going to turn all of his workers into tipped workers, saying that, like, you know, whenever an invoice is paid, it constitutes a tip from customers, and that's how we'll pay his people. But he's a manufacturer, you know, so. Obviously, he was just kidding around, and that's kind of silly. So, in the end, a lot of it is common sense as to what, you know, the people that you would expect to be getting tips, like you said, they're in the service industry and their voluntary tips, those are the ones that would be eligible. Next, when it comes to overtime pay, who, you know, what types of overtime pay would not be included in, you know, or eligible for this deduction?

Bill Goselin (06:22)

Yeah, you know, the overtime gets a little bit complicated. It's basically just anything that's covered under the definition for the Fair Labors and Standards Act. So it's just that 0.5% that traditionally falls as overtime. So, if your employer provides holiday pay, or if they provide, you know, you work on the weekends, you earn overtime, that's not considered qualified overtime for FLSA. So that's not qualified overtime. And then obviously, if your state has a mandate for, you know, if you work X number of hours in a day and you go over that, then that extra hours are overtime, that's not considered qualified over time. So it's just that 0.5 over 40 hours a week covered under the Fair Labors and Standards Act.

Gene Marks (07:18)

Good answer. You know, I just actually just did a webinar with Paychex. We were talking about all the new compliance issues that California business owners have to face. You know. Yeah, you use the example of, like, state overtime. I mean, California's overtime wage limits are higher, but that's not FLSA. so, it is... not all those overtime wages would be qualified for this deduction that employees can take. So just to reiterate your point, if you're an employer in a state where overtime pay is higher than what the federal government has under the Fair Labor Standards Act, you have to really talk to your, you know, your, your payroll tax professional and your accounting professional, because there's a likelihood that not all of that pay will be deductible, that your employees can take that overtime pay as deduction. How about maximums? Okay. We are again, this webinar covered, you know, taxes on tips and overtime. And again, for all of you watching, remember, this is like the employees are taking this deduction, but not all employees can take this deduction. There is a, there is a maximum level of pay. Can you, can you discuss the maximums where it starts?

Bill Goselin (08:30)

Yeah, no problem, Gene. So they're a little bit different for both. So for the tips, the maximum amount that qualifies for the deduction is $25,000 per return. And what that means is that if you file single, you get a maximum of $25,000 that you can use towards the deduction for tips. If you file married, joint and both you and your significant other are in the service industry, you get a maximum combined of $25,000 that the two of you can claim as a deduction on your income tax return. Now, for overtime, it's a little bit different. The maximum is still a total of $25,000. But where it's different is, is that each individual gets their own separate $12,500. So, if you file separately, you get to $12,500. If you're married filing joint, you get $25,000, but it's, you each get $12,500 that you can claim for the deduction limit for that.

Gene Marks (09:51)

Okay, that is good. Now, there are some limitations that are income. Once you start earning a certain amount, this benefit, this deduction starts to phase out?

Bill Goselin (10:03)

So, yeah, the maximum, for the maximum income level for an individual is $150,000. For any joint filings, it's $300,000.

Gene Marks (10:13)

Right. All right, that's great. And that is for tips or overtime?

Bill Goselin (10:17)

It's actually for both. It's actually for both. Yeah. They both have the same income level limits on them so that at least it's easier to remember it that way.

Gene Marks (10:28)

Okay. All right. That is great. Super helpful information. So my takeaways are again from the questions that were answered that were asked at this webinar. If you're an employer, it's optional about reporting overtime and tips, you know, income this year on W2s. But there's going to be changes for 2026. Remember, everybody, that this is a deduction that your employees are taking, it really doesn't change anything from the employer's standpoint other than just reporting. But your employees need to know about this stuff so they can maximize their deductions, if they're eligible for the tip deduction or the overtime deduction. Tips, you know, you know, there's certain amounts they can deduct up to. It's $25,000 per return. Overtime, it's $12,500. And then there's a maximum income level as well, around $150,000 individual, $300,000 joint, where these deductions phase out. So, lots to know. If you are an employer watching this right now, please make sure that your employees are educated and make sure that you put these numbers together with your payroll specialist so that you are not inundated with requests when people start filling out their individual tax returns. Okay. On the webinar, Bill, you know, that was where we talked about all these sort of, you know, regulatory issues facing businesses in 2026, you talked about research and development deductions. Right. So, you know, for those that may not have seen the webinar, they might have R&D expenses. And this is a deduction. It's not the R&D tax credits or the R&D deduction. Can you walk us through what you discussed?

Bill Goselin (12:06)

Yeah. So, with the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, there were changes that were made to the deductions that businesses can take on their income tax returns when it comes to research and development. Basically, what the law changed was that you can now immediately expense those costs and use them towards the deductions starting with tax year 2025 and going forward, anything, you no longer have to amortize them over five to 10 years, they're immediate deductions moving forward.

Gene Marks (12:45)

Great. So, we can now do that, because before these R&D deductions, they actually stopped back a couple of years ago, which meant if you had any research and development expenses, they had to be capitalized and amortized over five years. Well, now we're back to, you know, deducting them in the year they were incurred, which is a big tax benefit. Another big benefit, Bill, is that you can go back a few years, right? To 2022. Talk to me about that, because a question was asked about that as well.

Bill Goselin (13:13)

Yeah. So, for 2022. So for businesses, they can take those and they can immediately expense them either fully on their 2025 tax return, or they can split them equally between 2025 and 2026. And then additionally for any small businesses, and the way they define a small business is any business that has less than $31 million in annual gross receipts, what they can do is they can go back to tax year 2022 through 2024, and they can file amended returns for those years to capture those deductions. And they have until July 4 of 2026 to get those amended returns filed.

Gene Marks (14:04)

Oh, I actually didn't even know that. Okay, that's very interesting. And it is, so, it's a big benefit. So, you know, again, if you're running a small business and you qualify, you have, we said less than $31 million and...

Bill Goselin (14:14)

Less than $31 million. Yep.

Gene Marks (14:16)

Yeah. You know, and you had research and development expense that you fully did not take the deduction for, yet you incurred them 2022 and beyond. You can go back and amend your returns and do that. It will lower your taxable income, it'll lower your tax liability, and you might get some money back. I strongly recommend that you do that. Bill, just because sometimes people get confused about research and development, you know, are you comfortable talking a little bit about what that definition is? What does it mean? You know, I mean, I feel like more companies are eligible for these expenses than they know. You know what I mean?

Bill Goselin (14:53)

Yeah, definitely. I mean, research and development, I mean, it's a pretty broad spectrum. I mean, you know, anything you're doing to enhance your business, you know, whether you're researching AI and implementing new AI features into your business or, you know, any basic research effort that doesn't have to necessarily be in the vein of, you know, medical research or technical research, etc. As long as it's research that is being conducted to enhance your business and enhance your customer's experience, it's a good chance it's going to qualify.

Gene Marks (15:39)

Yeah, it's really good advice. And, you know, I tell my clients as well, like, hey, you know, you do product samples, you're doing market research. You're, you know, you're improving the capabilities of a product, and you need to, you spend time. You've got costs of your chemists and cost of engineers or outside contractors or outside marketing people or consultants. All of those expenses may qualify for this deduction. And it's pretty significant. And if you're not taking it elsewhere, you're not using it elsewhere, it's something that should definitely be considered. I know we're not talking about the R&D tax credit, but that also figures into that conversation too. Whenever you're not qualifying for the deduction, you can use these expenses for this tax credit. So, it is, it's an opportunity for businesses to really lower their taxes if they think hard about what's research and what's not. So strongly recommend that you do that. All right, final topic and obviously this is pretty quick, but you had talked a little bit about the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, which expired, and one, you know, visitor, one viewer that came to our webinar had a question about that. If you can just reiterate the status of the Work Opportunity Tax Credit.

Bill Goselin (16:52)

Right. So, the Work Opportunity Tax credit expired on December 31 of last year. Usually in the past, for the last, over last decade, it seems to get extended even when it's ready to expire. It didn't, it didn't get extended this past year, so it has technically expired. I think the term that is being used in the industry, it's on hiatus. Because there's a lot of anticipation, a lot of talk that it will get reinstated. It's just a matter of when. So it's very important that, you know, people, businesses still go out there, you know, still go out there and hire people in these, in these categories that may not traditionally have luck getting employment because in the event that it is reinstated, you know, there are some very beneficial tax credits that come your way with hiring individuals from these demographics. And so it's important, you know, keep doing, if you have been doing it, keep doing what you're doing, keep, continue with screenings. You know, if you're thinking about it for the first time, you know, there, there's still information out there. Do your, do your due diligence, do your screenings, pay attention to state laws, because state laws might have specific requirements that you have to adhere to as well, but, you know, nothing's guaranteed. But there's a good chance that this is going to get reinstated and hopefully it'll be retroactive to the beginning of the year so that people can, businesses can continue to take advantage of this very beneficial tax credit for everybody.

Gene Marks (18:45)

Yeah, I have two things to add to that. One is not enough businesses knew about the Work Opportunity Tax Credit. To me, I felt that was its biggest fault because it really is helpful to businesses who hire people that are off of welfare, out of prison, out of the military, a bunch of different qualities. So, you know, hopefully if and when it comes back, it can be around more sort of PR, around it. And then secondly, you did kind of mention it as well, just because the federal Work Opportunity Tax Credits going away, there are a number of states that do offer tax credits and incentives for hiring people that are disadvantaged, you know, again, off of welfare, out of prison. So, you know, don't just think there aren't those options available. Check out what your state has to offer as well. Well, Bill, you covered it all. We talked about tax on tips, tax on overtime. We talked about research and development deduction. We talked about Work Opportunity Tax Credit. These are all things that you discussed in great detail in our Top Regulatory Issues Facing Businesses in 2026 webinar. For those of you watching this, there is a link to that webinar in the show notes. If you want to see the full discussion with Bill and myself and others from Paychex on these and other issues, please click on the link and join us for that discussion. Bill, I want to thank you very much. Bill Goselin is a Compliance Analyst at Paychex. Your time is super valuable and your advice is even more valuable. So, thanks for spending the time.

Bill Goselin (20:10)

My pleasure, Gene. Thank you.

Gene Marks (20:13)

Next, we're joined by Jarryd Rutter. He is an HR Services Risk Partner at Paychex and he is here to break down multi-state compliance topics that came up a lot during the webinar, including paid family and medical leave, paid sick leave, and what employers need to know about worker classification heading into 2026. Here is Jarryd. Jarryd Rutter, thank you so much for joining. I am glad you and I have a chance to sort of catch up after the Top Regulatory Issues Facing Businesses in 2026 webinar that we did together. Thanks for coming on the podcast.

Jarryd Rutter (20:48)

Yeah, thanks for having me. I'm excited to be here today, Gene.

Gene Marks (20:51)

Good. So everyone. So, Jarryd is an HR Services Risk Partner at Paycheck. So he is, you know, responsible for a lot of these compliance issues. And on the webinar that we did, which by the way, again, a link to the webinar is in our show notes, you know, Jarryd, you know, dug into certain issues that were up his alley. Paid and family medical leave, paid sick leave, worker classifications, overtime roles, and all of that. So, you know, this recap, this, this, this, this interview is really, you know, your goal is to answer some of your questions that you had just during this webinar. So, first of all, before we even get into some of the specific questions, let me just ask for like a little recap, Jarryd. So, the paid family and medical leave. Tell me where this, as I think the overall theme is federal government not involved so much. This is more of a state-level thing. Fair enough.

Jarryd Rutter (21:48)

Yeah, fair enough indeed. And it's not currently at the federal level thing. We obviously have the paid, or not paid, FMLA, which is an unpaid leave. There are currently, and I stress currently 13 states that have a form of paid family medical leave. And I it's important to understand that what is 13 states right now could change. We never know. So one of the big challenges for employers is to keep tabs on what exists where and what is changing where, particularly for companies that have employees in multiple states. So if we put that 13 aside and we just focus on what is changing for 2026, there's a few changes. Delaware, they will have, they have deductions that were taking place or were supposed to take place by employers from employees in 2025. So, starting January 1 few weeks ago, employees in Delaware are able to submit claim for benefit. And similarly in Maine, similar type of situation in that the deductions were to be made from employees and payment remitted to states. But benefit eligibility for employees, that won't take place until main May 1, 2026. So, we have a few months there in Maine. Minnesota, you are now, if you're an employee in Minnesota, able to take advantage of benefits effective January 1, 2026. In Maryland, and again, a lot of this stuff is a moving target, Maryland has modified or changed or delayed, I should say their state paid family leave law. Now, the, the deductions won't start until 2027 and then employee benefit eligibility will take place starting in 2028.

Gene Marks (23:51)

Got it, got it. You know, we got a bunch of people that are watching or listening to this. Jarryd are, they're from all over the country. So, I mean, we can't spend a lot of time in any one state without, you know, sort of alienating everybody else that's not in that state. But let me just ask you like, number one, what you just generally, if you can, how does an employer treat an employee who is working out of their state, but they're in a state where these paid and family medical leave, you know, mandates exist. How do you, how do you determine that? And also, only because I do have clients with this, what if an employee is working from multiple states? I mean, I was just a trucking client logistics company. They have truck drivers that, you know, they're driving through multiple states. That's their job. Three or four states at any given time. You know what I mean? Just generally, is there like a rule of thumb how these things usually get handled?

Jarryd Rutter (24:47)

There unfortunately isn't. And this is a question that we get fairly regularly. And in HR, it depends is a term or phrase that is used fairly regularly. And this is one of the ultimate it depends. It depends on a number of factors. It depends on is the employee in a state in which they satisfy the eligibility requirements. So, when looking at that, if you have an employee that is bouncing back and forth from state to state, they might be eligible in one state but not eligible within another. And that can, to your point, if you have a truck driver, we see this pop up with outside sales reps that are covering a large region that is covering multiple states. And the question of, okay, well, if they're working in California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, so on and so forth, which law do we follow? And the reason, it depends, in addition to eligibility requirements, is certain laws do a better job that certain states do a better job of specifically indicating who has to be covered. Do they have to actually be sitting and working in that state? Or if the point of direction is coming from in a state and the employee, for example, doesn't have a home base or home office and they're literally bouncing, flying around the country, in fact, have to be provided this benefit? So, the, when there is ambiguity in question as to whether an employee is or is not to be covered by a state leave law, or there are scenarios where there are multiple states with multiple leave laws, if there's uncertainty, it's usually not always, but usually going to be in the employer's best interest to touch base with an attorney and talk through some of that stuff. And I mentioned it last week, but some of these laws do have unknowns. They're just written vague, and they're written so vague that there isn't necessarily a clear answer. And a lot of times there's clarifying guidance that would come out after the fact, but, hate to sound like I'm ducking the question, Gene, I really do, but they're just isn't a black and white answer.

Gene Marks (27:15)

Yeah, I've always, I'm always one like, less regulations the better. I think any business owner like myself feels that way. You know, you would think that, like, you know, the federal government's leaving, you know, hands off and leaving these things to the states. I do support states, you know, they know their people better, you know what I mean, than the federal government does, but boy, does it create complexities for a business owner. And I guess the takeaway is like, if you are operating in multiple states, if you have employees in multiple states, if you have employees moving around between states, I just think it's just, you know, just de facto that you're going to have to have a labor attorney, a payroll expert like Paychex, a good accountant, somebody that's going to have to help you comply with this stuff, because that's a lot.

Jarryd Rutter (27:57)

Because it's not like you're a CPA. So, you're familiar, I'm sure, with determining what state unemployment tax is paid to when you work sequentially through, it used to be four rules, it's been a minute since I was in payroll, but you would work down those rules. It's not necessarily that clean cut and easy with this type of a law.

Gene Marks (28:18)

It's not. It's not. And I guess another question got submitted, which I think you already answered. The question was, what about seasonal workforce, seasonal employees with permanent addresses in different states, which regulations apply? And I'm going to answer for you because you've already said it. It depends. Right. You know, what states that are involved. Is that a fair answer?

Jarryd Rutter (28:42)

It is. And with seasonal workers, one of the key focal points in working through, you know, an analysis or list of considerations is how many hours are they working? Are they even eligible? If they're only working, you know, the holiday season, very, very temporary, and they're not working very many hours, they very well might not be eligible to begin with. But in the most basic sense, usually it's going to be where the employee sits and is working. That would be the state and the law that would be applied. And where things start to get muddy is the example you brought up. Moving from state to state, traveling remote, doesn't necessarily have a home office. So a lot of considerations. And to your earlier point, CPA, attorney, and, of course, we're able to help our clients with a lot of that as well. And if we reach a point where we feel like Mr. and Mrs. Client is going to be in your best interest, probably to talk to counsel, yeah, well, we'll make that recommendation as well.

Gene Marks (29:45)

Okay. And I want to, I do want to reiterate for those of you that are watching or listening to this, I mean, again, not...blowing this off or not being compliant with this stuff, not great. I mean, again, I've seen this with client after client, it gets classified or at least reported as wage theft because you're not, you know, paying or providing these benefits to people. And it is not exactly the PR as a business owner that you want to have. So, it just underscores the importance of paying attention to this stuff. And speaking of that, so Jarryd, moving, you know, moving on, you also discussed in our webinar about paid sick leave. So, in addition to paid family and medical leave, where many states have mandates for employers, 20 states have mandates for paid sick leave. So, give us an update on where paid sick leave stands as a mandate across the country.

Jarryd Rutter (30:34)

Yeah, it's a lot more prevalent. It's been something we started seeing now at this point probably like 15 years ago, and I made mention that usually these laws start from the coast, work their way in. At the federal level, there is no requirement. So, there's nothing that you really need to as an employer be aware of from a federal perspective, unless you are a federal contractor. And then there may be a need for you to provide paid sick time as a requirement. There are 20 states currently that have requirements. We're not going to dive into each and every one of those states. This is intended to be more high level overview, but it's important to understand as well that there are also quite a few localities within specific states that have their own paid sick leave. And there can be slight differences between perhaps what the California state law is versus what the San Diego paid sick leave law is or Los Angeles. So that's important to consider and can be challenging to navigate as well. There are not to make this even more complicated or sound more complicated, but certain states have industry-specific requirements, and some carve outs and as well. So, you might be in a state that has a required paid sick time benefit for your employees, but you don't have to follow it because you fall into an industry in which there's a carve out or you know, there are certain industries within certain states in which you maybe wouldn't otherwise have to provide that benefit if you were not in a specific industry. So, when we talk about changes for...there's nothing new. There are no new states that are rolling out a paid sick leave law. There are a few changes in three states, California being one of them. They have expanded their usage eligibility. So you are now able in California to use paid sick time should you be in a situation in which you have to appear in court or you have to serve jury duty. And that would be for any scenario where you're the victim of or a family member is a victim of a family or I'm sorry, a serious crime. And so that's what's going on in California. Similarly, when we talk about usage rules, Oregon has modified their usage eligibility. You're also now in Oregon able to utilize paid sick time if you are going to give blood. And then while not necessarily just related to usage, Connecticut would round out the three with 2026 modifications. And that modification is a change in the employee threshold which would be used to determine whether or not an employer is or isn't a covered entity under that law. So, what was in Connecticut, 25 or more employees or eligibility or to be a covered entity as an employer, that number has been brought down to 11, which is pretty significant when you start to consider the fact that you're pulling some relatively smaller size companies into that coverage.

Gene Marks (34:03)

And I'm assuming again, it does depend on the state. But I'm curious if are most states, do they allow employers to, you know, require proof from their employees, you know, that they were sick? Is that a general thing that employers can impose on their employees?

Jarryd Rutter (34:24)

Yes and no. And I hate to go back to it depends. But there are a number, usually not all, but usually the law is going to, or ordinance, is going to specify whether you as an employer can or cannot request that substantiating documentation from an employee. I think what you'll find most commonly when you go out and start to look at the various laws and ordinances that exist, they usually tie it to three consecutive days. After that third day, you're then able to request documentation. This is a question frankly that we get quite regularly. Even outside of the realm of paid sick time usage, there are other factors that really need to be considered. Even if it is something that is technically permissible under the law or the ordinance, you take on certain forms of risk by having that practice in place. So, you need to have a policy that stipulates that you're going to do it. You need to consider past precedent. What have you done in the past for other employees? Have you been rock solid and consistent? If you haven't, and now you have this one employee that you're going to ask for this documentation. Are you treating this person differently or more importantly yet is it perceived? Do they perceive you as treating them differently because of a known medical issue? And it can in certain situations open the door to suddenly becoming aware of a medical condition that could meet the definition of a disability under the ADA or state local equivalent laws. So personally, it's typically not something I really recommend to do, whether it's part of a paid sick time policy or not. I'm just of the opinion that there oftentimes is more risk in having that as your practice than benefit gained. Recognizing, however, that there are certain industries in which it just makes sense because there can be abuse of that policy on the employee's part of perceived abuse. So, no one-size-fits-all answer to that question, but...

Gene Marks (36:38)

No, it's okay, it's okay. It's just, you know, one of the things I also keep in mind is that the, if you are requiring, you know, proof that an employee was out sick, just you got to be careful if you're employer, for HIPAA rules and healthcare privacy rules. You know, I mean, sometimes things get disclosed that, you know, in a sick note that you might or you shouldn't be knowing about, and that could be a potential problem. So, you know, there's all these different things to navigate. Okay, enough about that. Let's talk about really our next-to-final issue of the day is just worker classification rules. So, this is, you know, classifying people as employees versus independent contractors, where it's going back and forth, you know. So, Jarryd, so where do things stand now? Nationally?

Jarryd Rutter (37:26)

Nationally, to start off, it's been all over the road and it's largely been dependent upon which administration happens to be in power and the focus by some on one side of the political spectrum to have a want or desire to make the classification of a worker as an independent contractor easier to do. Conversely, some argue that it's more beneficial to have the ease of, or making it more difficult, I should say, of classifying somebody as an independent contractor. And I'm not going to get into what's good, what's bad, what my personal perspective is on any of that. That's not what we're here to talk about today. But at the federal level with regards to change and this being somewhat of a moving target, we're in a place right now in which a lot of this is being kind of held up in court. So litigators are attacking it. But we're, we're now in a place in which we are referring back to Fact Sheet 13, which was the law of the land way back in 2008. And there have been multiple changes since then, which here again, I don't want to get into the history of worker classifications. Not a good use of our time. But what's important to understand is that we are now back to that, that 2008 Fact Sheet 13 and the 2024 rule that is going to have a six-factor test. And with that six-factor test, you're looking at certain types of things that are going to be more relationship based. So you're looking at the type of financial reliance that the worker has on the company, the amount of control that the company has over the worker. There are a variety of different, at the federal level things that would be looked at and you look at the relationship in totality to try to come to the conclusion of whether the worker is or is not appropriately classified, if classified as an independent contractor. So, as it pertains to these changes and what's coming, it's really important that if companies are utilizing independent contractors, it's really important to keep tabs and keep up to date as to what is happening. Because these things are happening quickly and once it's locked in, being that we are, as you know, early on in the current administration, once locked in, they might be locked in for a while. Moral of the story, we don't really have a way to know for sure at the federal level where we're going to land.

Gene Marks (40:12)

Right. You know, Jared, you had actually mentioned me, you know, separately that you often get, this question was not asked during a webinar, but you often get it, you know, business owners or employers will ask what if a worker wants to be paid as an independent contractor instead of an employee? How do I, you know, how do I handle that? And you know, it's happened to me numerous times. It's enticing for an employer just to pay somebody as an independent contractor, but that might not always be kosher. Can you, can you expand on that?

Jarryd Rutter (40:46)

Yeah, they can make the request, but the reality is if they aren't an independent contractor based on federal, state, or some local law or the test that exists within each jurisdiction, you can't classify or you shouldn't classify someone as an independent contractor just because they want to be classified as such. So if you look at this big picture, when you have someone that you're paying as an independent contractor, from an employer perspective, you're not paying taxes, right? You're not paying any taxes on the dollars that are being paid to that independent contractor. Good, bad, or indifferent. Government agencies may have a vested interest in getting those tax dollars from more employers, but there's also this focus on ensuring that an employee is provided employee benefits. And if they're misclassified as an independent contractor, they're not eligible for benefits. If you have an independent contractor that you're providing benefits to, I would encourage you to get with someone, whether it's someone with Paychex or, you know, CPA, attorney, because that can be a fairly decisive indication that what is perceived as an independent contractor perhaps is not. But it is a question that I can't say that I fully understand the want behind those requests. I suspect it primarily has to do with the fact that taxes aren't being withheld. The worker would be responsible for paying their own taxes after the fact. So, take-home pay is theoretically higher. We don't need to get into that in a lot of detail, but it's not an option. It's similar on the wage and hours side. Periodically, we get the question of, well, my employee wants to work, but they're looking to waive overtime. They can't waive overtime. If they are working overtime, by law, an employer has to pay them. So, it's not a waiver, a choice that employees or workers are able to make.

Gene Marks (42:53)

And speaking of overtime, our final topic, I mean, I'm speaking separately with Bill Goselin about the no tax on overtime rule, so we don't have to get into that, but the overtime rules themselves, you know, have, I guess I keep saying this, they've changed and then they change back, you know, so where do we stand? And I guess from, from a federal standpoint, and if you want to touch on state, that's fine, but just a quick recap, where are we on overtime pay? What is the, you know, what should employers know?

Jarryd Rutter (43:24)

Currently, things haven't really changed from a salary basis test perspective. We're still working off of what was a 2019 increase. Been held up in court or challenged in court. So, what's important to understand, however, is that the salary basis test, basically meaning you have to pay your exempt workers a certain dollar amount, it needs to be paid in the form of a weekly salary or weekly salary equivalent that can't be deducted from. At the federal level, you can incorporate up to 10% in like supplemental wages. That could be bonuses, that could be commissions, certain types of lodging. But that's only one piece of the calculus as far as how you would determine whether or not a worker is or is not an exempt employee. So, while there haven't been any changes, and we're still looking at that, that 684 at the federal level, that's only one piece of the puzzle. And there's the duties test, which focuses on what the employee does and doesn't do. And that tends to be a far more complicated analysis. Here again, we work with our clients regularly to help them establish what is perceived as being the appropriate classification, exempt versus non-exempt. So, we do a lot of work in that, that category, but salary and salary only, that hasn't really changed. And the same could be said frankly for the duties side of it.

Gene Marks (45:01)

Okay. And just to, but just to make sure, like there were changes proposed under the Biden administration and they got hung up in the courts, so everything was like not changed while they were being battled out. And now under this administration, the government's not pursuing that. So what you said, it's still the same as it was back in 2019, despite the proposed changes made by the previous administration. Is that, is that a fair statement?

Jarryd Rutter (45:25)

And it's kind of a been there, done that type of situation as well because this is the second time that we've run into this. It's somewhat unfortunate in how the timeline has played out because we had a lot of clients that were making decisions based on the assumption that the 684 was going to be increased, and it was a fairly significant increase. I don't remember the exact dollar amount, but I want to say it was somewhere in the $900ish a week, which would have been that new salary threshold. So, we had clients that came to the conclusion that, well, we can't increase Employee ABC's salary to a weekly equivalent, that it's that high, therefore, we're just going to be proactive and change these workers to non-exempt, only to find out that they never really had to make that change in the first place. Yeah. Yep. But it's always going to be a risk that you take. You go back to earlier in our discussion, the Maryland law, paid family law, that has been delayed. You prepare assuming sometimes things get pushed back or get erased. The flip side of that is you're not prepared and you don't have the things in place that you need to have in place, thinking, well, maybe this law won't go into effect or I heard that it may be challenged and held up in court. That's usually not something that we would recommend because it puts you it puts you in a situation in which you're exposed to potential wage and hour risk.

Gene Marks (47:03)

So, everyone, Jarryd Rutter is an HR Services Risk Partner at Paychex. Him and I have been discussing some of the questions that were raised from the webinar that we recently did called Top Regulatory Issues Facing Businesses in 2026. A link to that webinar is in the show notes. Jarryd, thank you so much for your time. I look forward to seeing you again for another webinar, hopefully sometime later on this year, where we'll update our clients about what they need to know to make sure they stay in compliance. So, thanks for your time, Jarryd.

Jarryd Rutter (47:30)

Absolutely appreciate the opportunity, Gene.

Gene Marks (47:33)

And finally, we are wrapping up today with Zach Keep, Manager of Risk Compliance at Paychex. Covering one of the biggest retirement compliance updates for employers, mandatory Roth catch-up contributions under SECURE 2.0 and what companies should be doing now to prepare. It's kind of a big issue, something to pay attention to. Here Is Zach. All right everybody, I am with Zach Keep, who is a Manager of Compliance Risk at Paychex. He specializes in retirement, which is what we're going to talk about right now. Zach joined me on the webinar that we did, of course, The Top Regulatory Issues Facing Businesses in 2026. There is a link to that webinar in the show notes, as you probably know by now already. But there were some questions that came up during the webinar regarding some of the topics that he talked about, specifically Roth plans. And also on tax credits as well, we're going to try and get into. But first of all, Zach, thank you for joining. I'm really glad that you're here.

Zach Keep (48:33)

My pleasure, Gene. Always great to get the chance to sit down.

Gene Marks (48:36)

It is, it's actually always fun talking with you. So, I'm glad that we have another chance to do so. Okay, let's start with Roth plans, which are growing in popularity as people become more and more familiar with them and understand, you know, what they do. So, before we get to the specific questions that were raised, can I just ask you to just give a brief overview description of what a Roth plan is?

Zach Keep (49:00)

Sure, absolutely. What is Roth? Well, Roth is, think of it like a normal 401(k) just turned upside down. Right. The 401(k) that we all know and love. What most people think of is pre-tax deductions. The dollars that you contribute from your paycheck are contributed before taxes, they're invested, they grow, and then in retirement you have, you know, your tax hit, basically. When you take those dollars out of that 401(k), 457, 403, that's when you're kind of squaring up with Uncle Sam. Roth is exactly the opposite. With a Roth contribution, you are satisfying your tax burden right up front and then those dollars are growing in a tax-free fashion and are not taxed upon distribution. So, for certain types of employees, for certain types of investors, Roth has really been an attractive option, and we've seen a lot of growth of it over the years.

Gene Marks (50:03)

All right, that makes sense. And Zach, just, you know, also to be clear, you know, thanks to the SECURE 2.0 legislation which passed back in 2022, employers can now offer Roth 401(k) plans in addition to their traditional 401(k) plans, correct?

Zach Keep (50:18)

Well, yes, but that's not quite thanks to SECURE 2.0. Roth has been around, obviously, for a very, very long time. Not every plan has permitted Roth. And I think that's for a number of reasons, you know, lack of awareness, just the, the perception of complexity, whether that's accurate or not. But Roth has been an option in the 401(k) world for, gosh, decades now. I think it's fair to say not the most heavily utilized option, but certainly an attractive option for certain classes of investors. And obviously now thanks to SECURE 2.0 and some of the mandates tied to Roth, now not so much an option, I think in a lot of plans.

Gene Marks (51:01)

Yeah, that's really good to know. And I've been saying that to my clients though for a while now. Like, you know, I think it's a no brainer if you're offering a traditional 401(k) to also offer a Roth 401(k). It's just another savings vehicle for your employees, another benefit to provide. And I think it's certainly affordable to do. So, what, in our webinar you talked about some of the changes that are recent and some of the regulatory things you need to be looking forward to in 2026 and a lot of it has to do with catch up contributions to these Roth plans. So, talk to us about that because there were some, there were some questions about it.

Zach Keep (51:39)

Sure. So, like we talked about, Gene, historically, you know, Roth has been an option. It's been a thing. Some people love it, some people don't like it, some plans offer it, some plans, you know, refuse to offer it. All of those were fine. But thanks to SECURE 2.0, there... Well, let's take a step back, I guess, you know, when something like SECURE 2.0 is enacted, one of the questions is how are we going to pay for it as a nation? Right. One of the pay-fors in SECURE 2.0 is the Rothification, which is kind of the word the industry has made up, the Rothification of catch-up provisions. And what this means is that for the first time, certain individuals making certain contributions, we'll talk about those details in a moment, but for now, certain individuals making certain contributions must do so on a Roth basis. Now why? What's the pay-for there? Well, the pay-for is honestly Uncle Sam gets that tax revenue right up front. It's not a pre-tax contribution, it's a post-tax contribution. the revenue comes in, and now that's kind of how we're paying for the infrastructure associated with SECURE 2.0. So, who needs to worry about Rothification? Well, you need to kind of fall into two distinct classes. The first is you need to be making what are called catch-up contributions to a 401(k) plan. Now, a catch-up is something that, you know, for our purposes here, let's keep it simple. We're going to say for individuals who are over the age of 50, those individuals have for a very, very long time now been entitled to contribute above and beyond what their base limit is. So, the limits themselves, we all know change year to year. This year, $24,500 is the base limit. If you are a participant in a 401(k), if you're 18 years old, or if you're 49 years old, that's what you can contribute. If you're age 50 or older, you, you are entitled to a catch up of an additional $8,000. So, the first demographic that this is going to be targeting, or I should say the first half of the demographic, is those who are utilizing that catch up provision, those who are over the age of 50 and contributing above and beyond their base limit.

Gene Marks (54:11)

And if I can just interrupt you and just ask, do you mean catch up contributions to your traditional 401(k)? Is that what you're referring to?

Zach Keep (54:18)

Let, let's call it our 401(k) in general, because we're going to, we're going to get into that Roth in just a moment.

Gene Marks (54:25)

Okay.

Zach Keep (54:26)

So, if you are over the age of 50 and you are contributing a catch-up contribution, you can absolutely contribute it to your traditional 401(k) or to your Roth 401(k) if you want. But, and here's the crux of it, there's another hoop to jump through. If you are what we're calling a high-earning individual, if in the last tax year you made more than $150,000, then you must contribute your catch-up as a Roth deferral. That's what's new with SECURE 2.0. Catch-up isn't new. Roth isn't new. You can always contribute a catch-up. You can contribute a catch-up to Roth if you want. But now, if you're in that kind of high earning bucket, you must contribute your catch-up as a Roth contribution. And that's the pay-for in SECURE 2.0. That's what we're talking about when we say Rothification of catch up provisions.

Gene Marks (55:26)

So let me make sure I understand this. Let me just talk about the people making more than $150,000, because I have a lot of clients that are in that boat. Say they don't participate at all in a Roth plan. Say they just have a traditional 401(k) and they, they don't have anything going on with Roth. Does this, you know, mandated catch-up contribution apply to them?

Zach Keep (55:46)

Well, not a mandated catch-up contribution. The catch-up is always, is optional. Right. Every individual decides how much he or she wants to contribute to their 401(k). So, if they're contributing at the base limit, that $24,500 that we just talked about, Gene, they can contribute that however they like. They can do it to a standard 401(k), traditional 401(k) pre-tax. They can do it Roth, they can mix it up, they can do a little bit Roth, they can do a little bit pre-tax. That's fine, too. If they're using that catch up contribution and their income is over that limit, if they meet both of those qualifiers, then only that portion which is the catch-up needs to be Roth. That's where they lose the option. So, a good example would say, you know, let's say I'm the, I'm the owner of Zach Small Engine Repair, that's my favorite company, and I can contribute up to my base limit. The 402(g) limit is what we call it in the industry. You can contribute up to that however you like. You retain the freedom you've always had. Only that extra, only those dollars contributed under the ages of the catch-up would need to be Roth.

Gene Marks (57:01)

Got it. Okay, that makes complete sense. So, okay, let's keep going with this. Now this is there are other plans besides just 401(k)s. There are 401(k)s, there are 403(b)s, there's four, five, you know, 457 plans or others, you know, tell us what this provision applies to. And if you can also for our audience, just explain to me what the difference are in those plans.

Zach Keep (57:26)

Yeah, absolutely. And it's interesting, Gene, you know, we sometimes forget about that. We're so focused on 401(k). I think it's fair to say that, you know, in America today, retirement is often synonymous with 401(k), but everything in SECURE 2.0 or most everything, certainly the Rothification piece, is applicable to more than 401(k) plans. So, what we would be looking at here would be 403(b) retirement plans and also 457 plans. Now to your question, how are those plans different? You know, as a general rule, if I had to sum it up, I would say they really aren't that different. You know, all of these plans have similar limits. You know, when we get into 403(b), there's maybe a couple of different kinds of catch-up provisions tied to years of service. You know, 457 plans have some very esoteric differences, but I think it's fair to say that if you have, you know, 100 participants for 99 of them, those plans are interchangeable. We see four, you know, 403(b) is essentially the 401(k) of the non-profit world. We see 403(b)s in K-12, school districts, non-profits, things like that. Whereas 401(k) is much more common in the for-profit realm.

Gene Marks (58:51)

Makes sense. Okay, that's great. All right. So, you know, we have a lot of employers that have, you know, watch this webinar and we've had questions from a few of them about, well, how does this, you know, how does this affect me as an employer? I mean, if you and I are employees and say we make more than $150,000 or we're required to make a catch-up, you know, to Roth, it's kind of on us, you know, to do that. Do employers have responsibilities too?

Zach Keep (59:17)

Yeah, that, you know, that they do. They do. I think they have responsibilities at both the strategic level and the tactical level. You know, for, let's kind of start strategic. We'll work our way down. The first question is if you are offering a 401(k) plan and you or one of your employees wants to utilize catch-up provisions and they qualify, they're making above that $150,000, right? Their contributions need to be Roth. So, the first question to ask yourself is, does my plan permit Roth contributions? Because if it doesn't, the door to that catch-up kind of closes. So, I think right now employers should have ideally already asked, but certainly should be asking if they haven't already, you know, do we permit Roth and look into amending that plan document? Because without the ability to make Roth contributions, that catch-up option, you know, that door is closed. There's, there's the first big one and I think, you know, the second big one is a little bit, a little bit more administrative. It's going to fall to the employer to properly report who earned what to their plan administrator or to track it themselves if they're administering their own plan. And maybe this is a great time to think about a third-party administrator or a TPA, if you're an employer doing that. But yeah, you know, you're going to need to know who is affected. You're going to need to know when they're hitting their base contribution limit when catch-up kicks in. So yeah, there are some administrative work that is going to be ongoing work. Plan document amendment is kind of a one-and-done. But, the administration of this is going to be something employers will need to watch. Yep. And not for nothing, explained to their employees.

Gene Marks (1:01:11)

Okay, so let me, let me beat you up on this just a little bit more because to make sure I'm completely clear on this, say I'm an employer, I've got, however, many employees. I've got a traditional 401(k) plan. I do not have a Roth plan. And it's just a traditional 401(k). I've got an employee that's making more than $150,000 and that employee has maxed out on their contributions, the 401(k). And they want to make, you know, catch-up contributions. Right. So, for starters, I have to be smart enough or aware enough to say to the employee, you cannot make any more catch-up contributions to our 401(k) plan because you've hit the limits. And your catch-up contributions have to be to a Roth plan. We don't have a Roth plan. So make it to a Roth plan if that's what you want to do. And is that, am I done as the employer as long as I notified the employee of this? You know, I mean, are you saying like I have to have a Roth plan option for the employee to contribute to?

Zach Keep (1:02:08)

I think the keyword there is option, Gene, because, okay, you've got a 401(k) plan, whether it's standard or Roth, it's your 401(k). And then within that plan, you have Roth and standard. So it's not like it's a separate plan. So, the catch-up is limited to the 401(k). I think in the scenario that you outlined, the conversation would be a little bit more blunt and I'm afraid it would actually be more like, you know, employ. You can't utilize the 401(k) catch-up either. There is nowhere else for you to contribute this. It's not like an employee can go start their own. Right. It's an employer-sponsored plan. So as an employer who didn't offer Roth, the conversation would be, you know, we're sorry, this isn't an option for you.

Gene Marks (1:02:56)

Right, that is a clear answer and I appreciate that. Which brings me to the next question that was asked from this webinar. And it's, it's related, so maybe we're overlapping a little bit, but again, what if you just said, you know, you have a 401(k), you've got the traditional and then you've got the Roth, you know, part of the plan. But I do have clients that only have traditional 401(k) plans.

Zach Keep (1:03:15)

Oh sure.

Gene Marks (1:03:16)

They do not have Roth plans, you know, available. So, what about them? Like, you know, what is the limit of their responsibility when it comes to these catch-up contributions? I know you've kind of talked, you've already mentioned this, let me ask you just to say it again.

Zach Keep (1:03:30)

So, yeah, I think if I were an employer self-administering a 401(k) plan and I were for whatever reason dead set against Roth contribution, I am not going to have a Roth option available in my 401(k). Employer responsibility is to look at who's earning above the $150,000 limit. And by the way, that limit's going to change, you know, that's going to be indexed. So, every year you're going to need to look at your employees, you're going to need to look at what they're contributing and at minimum prevent them from utilizing that catch up if they make over the earning limit, the $150,000 for this year and it'll go up in years to come. I think that's the bare minimum. I would say that an employer would probably be well served by kind of projecting who's on pace to utilize that catch a provision and let them know sooner rather than later. That would be necessary, no, but probably it would be appreciated by the employee.

Gene Marks (1:04:33)

What happens if we mess it up as an employer and they hit the limit, but then they're like, no, I'm going to contribute another $8,000 to my 401(k) and that person is making more than $150,000 and we let them contribute at $8,000 to their traditional 401(k). What's, you know, what's the exposure to the employer?

Zach Keep (1:04:51)

You know, that's a good question and it gets complex pretty quickly, Gene. You know, I think how that would play out most likely is those contributions in the end wouldn't be invested. They would come back to the employer. I think, you know, I certainly hope, I can speak for Paychex and say, you know, we wouldn't let that happen for one of our clients. But if you are a kind of a standalone administrator, I think it's fair to say that your investment provider themselves, themselves is likely to intercept that.

Gene Marks (1:05:25)

Yeah, I think the takeaway that I get from Zach is that this is, it's a headache for employers, it is an administrative responsibility. Potentially fiduciary, but definitely administrative responsibility. And you really have to have talks with your administrator, whether it's Paychex or whoever else is administrating your plans in advance, and say, okay, what employees do we have that are, say, making more than $150,000? What are they, you know, who is potentially, you know, going to be an issue and sort of head them off the pass to avoid having to go back and correct errors and upsetting people. Nobody likes surprises. And I think that it's important to plan that ahead. Right?

Zach Keep (1:06:07)

You know, I think at this point, it's difficult to argue with more choice in a plan. Right. That, that's a hard thing to say. It's bad to have more choice. I think as I look at the complexity of what is involved with, with watching this in perpetuity versus what's involved with simply offering Roth, I think a lot of employers might say, you know, all things being equal, it's easier to just allow for Roth contributions and let this happen as the government intended, rather than dealing with the ongoing administrative burden of watching this simply to avoid offering Roth in a 401(k).

Gene Marks (1:06:50)

Good. All right, great stuff. One final question then, and just very quickly, we didn't, we didn't go into like huge detail about this during the webinar, but the questions, questions always come about the tax credits that are available for businesses under SECURE 2.0. Can you give us just a quick, it's been since 2022 and I still don't feel people are really aware of the credits, the benefits available to them. Can you just recap what employers should know?

Zach Keep (1:07:15)

Yeah. In brief, I will, Gene. You know, SECURE 2.0 followed on the heels of SECURE 1.0 as the name implies, and it really extended the tax credit paradigm. The government is attempting to encourage employers to offer a 401(k) plan, and they're doing that by financial incentives. Honestly. You know, right now in 2026, an employer establishing a new 401(k) plan, that is the employer who's getting off the bench, they haven't offered one in the past, they think it's time to, they can offset their startup costs 100% of startup costs as a tax credit. If that employer chooses to do an employer match, there's another tax credit available offsetting, you know, initially offsetting 100% of up to a certain limit, kind of phased down over the years. But bottom line, additional tax credits designed to encourage an employer not just to offer a plan, but to offer a fully featured plan to give people that match, probably to give them all of the bells and whistles that they can. And that's easier than ever before. We have things like the pooled employer plan that takes the fiduciary burden and then the administrative burden off the employer. So, what we're seeing is these tax credits are driving employers to 401(k). More new 401(k)s recently than we've really ever seen before. Especially you've got states that are mandating retirement plans. Employers know, hey, I can do the state plan or I can satisfy that mandate by a 401(k) that is a better plan, more flexible plan and I can get tax credits for it. So that math I think is pretty simple for a lot of employers out there.

Gene Marks (1:09:00)

Zach Keep is the Manager of Compliance Risk at Paychex. We spent some time together on our, you know, well-attended webinar, The Top Regulatory Issues Facing Businesses in 2026. You can get a link to it in the show notes if you want to go back and review it. Zach, as always, it's great having you on. Thank you so much for spending the time.

Zach Keep (1:09:19)

Always a pleasure, Gene.

Gene Marks (1:09:20)

All right everybody, my name is Gene Marks, and I want to thank so much Bill and Jarryd and Zach for great information giving us everything we need to know regarding staying in compliance for all the new rules and regulations that are affecting our businesses in 2026. Now they just answered some specific questions I had. You can get the full details and listen to the full conversation by joining us on this webinar which is prerecorded and available for you to view whenever you want. There is a link in our show notes for you. I am telling you if you are an employer, a business owner, a manager, HR professional, payroll manager or payroll professional, you're going to want to watch this webinar. So again, click on the link in the show notes. Hopefully you will enjoy and we'll see you in the next episode of Paychex THRIVE. Take care. Do you have a topic or a guest that you would like to hear on THRIVE, please let us know. Visit payx.me/ThriveTopics and send us your ideas or matters of interest. Also, if your business is looking to simplify your HR, payroll benefits or insurance services, see how Paychex can help. Visit the resource hub at paychex.com/worx. That's W-O-R-X. Paychex can help manage those complexities while you focus on all the ways you want your business to thrive. I'm your host, Gene Marks, and thanks for joining us. Till next time, take care.

Announcer (1:10:38)

This podcast is property of Paychex Incorporated 2026. All rights reserved.