Leaderboard

Hi Carol -- We'd love to have the database and create a page on BenefitsLink, with credit to you. Let me know how I can get it and make it easy for you. What is this retirement thing of which you speak? I thought it was only mythology 🙂 CONGRATULATIONS!

Thank you! And I'd love to have BenefitsLink take over that page. I've e-mailed you with information. Thanks, Bill! This is definitely bittersweet for me. I've been practicing employee benefits law for 46 years now, and maintaining my site for 28, and it's hard to walk away from all that. But I am 72, and it's time for a new chapter in my life. I've been accepted as a volunteer EMT trainee with a local fire department. That will be about a year of classes, practical training, and helping out the EMTs, after which I'll be certified as an EMT myself. Some questions have been raised as to whether I actually understand the meaning of "retire," which I hear is supposed to mean relaxing and playing golf or something. But I'm excited about the new challenges.

A plan can allow the use of any definition of compensation defined under 1.414(s)-1 Definition of Compensation to perform the ADP test. Assuming that the plan document does not restrict the definition of compensation, you can use any of the available definitions in this section regardless of the definition of compensation used to calculate elective deferrals or for other plan purposes.

An IRA can not be part of a qualified plan. A Roth IRA can not be rolled over into a Roth account in a qualified plan. Just set up the new account. Do it right.

I would think twice (thrice) before taking this assignment. The facts presented do not bode well for a good consultant/client relationship.

Peter is being very non-alarmist (even though he is of course correct!). I would like to be much more alarming. Fix this immediately, it is super-duper bad. The Plan Administrator made a mistake; that's the plan administrator's fault and they need to pay the expense. At best you can take the position that this is a prohibited loan from the plan to the plan administrator, corrected with interest (etc). Get an attorney involved. This is very very problematic. probably eligible for self-correction under the new DOL Program, but absolutely needs to be corrected.

In my view (which is not advice to anyone), a fiduciary ought not to direct paying or reimbursing from plan assets such a penalty if a fiduciary, a service provider, or an employer is responsible for the act or failure to act that results in the penalty. That’s so even if a penalty was administratively addressed to the plan. If an employer paid a penalty but another person was at fault, the employer might get its lawyer’s advice about rights and remedies regarding the other person.

I would like to chime in. Participants actual account balance is the sum of the actual assets in his account plus the value of the outstanding loan. Assets remaining after the loan - $25,000 Outstanding loan - $25,000 His account balance is $50,000 50% of this is $25,000 Less outstanding loan of $25,000 Remaining loan available is $0 You need to remember to add back in the loan since it is part of his account value before you determine the 50% of vested balance. Unless the asset value drops from the original time you took the loan, you should never get a negative answer.

I have now retired, and will no longer be updating my site. So for all of you who have been relying on my maximum benefits and contributions page for historical limits, it is unlikely I will be updating it and I may take it down at some point. However, I do have the database with all the limits back to 1996. If anyone wants it so that they can develop their own page, let me know.

Tell him to roll money back in so it can be distributed. If he doesn’t, issue the 1099s showing some of the money can’t be rolled over and cause him some heartache.

The Labor department’s Voluntary Fiduciary Correction Program, at its § 7.6(b), suggests, indirectly, an opportunity to correct a fiduciary’s breach in paying, or allowing to be paid, from plan assets an expense that was not a proper plan-administration expense. While there are some further conditions and details, the correction is mostly about restoration or disgorgement, whichever is the greater recovery for the plan. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-01-15/pdf/2025-00327.pdf A VFCP no-action letter affords some relief from some ERISA title I civil investigation and civil penalties. I don’t know what might obtain tax law relief. This is not advice to anyone.

You only need to test them all together as one big group. Under 414(b), members of a controlled group are treated as a single employer for testing purposes. So if A, B, and C are all the same employer, and C, D, and E are all the same employer, then logically all of A, B, C, D and E must be the same employer.

I think you are missing the point here - the question/issue is severance pay not post-severance compensation. The person is no longer employed and severance pay (per IRS) is never plan compensation.

Ta-da, now on BenefitsLink (with Carol's consent): Inflation-Adjusted Limits on Retirement Plans, Including Maximum Benefits and Contributions (1996-Present)

Congrats! Enjoy those new challenges - I think it is important to retire TO something rather than FROM something. Good luck!

I did not read all of the posts in the thread but the OP states that payments are "in pay status". Maybe one of the posts stated that benefits are not in pay status... if so, disregard my post. This is because I view a coverture fraction only helpful when benefits are not "in pay status", i.e., benefits are going to start at a later date. Like you said, it is used because you know the numerator but do not know the denominator. The fraction allows for adjustments for the participant's additional service time post-divorce for which the alternate payee should not receive a benefit. For example, QDRO issued in YR 1 awards 50% of the coverture fraction. QDRO states at divorce the participant has 10 years of service and the alternate payee and participant were married for all of those years. When the participant retires in YR 21, they would have an additional 20 years of service. Benefits begin to be paid, so the alternate payee's portion of the monthly benefit payment would be 50% x 10/30 of the monthly benefit. The coverture fraction is needed to ensure the alternate payee does not benefit from the additional service when the payment start. If, as stated in the OP, payments are already started, I don't see a problem with amending the QDRO to do the math... using the example... the QDRO would simply state that the alternate payee should receive 16.67% of the monthly benefit. I am not saying the plan administrator is correct, I am just saying, practically speaking, amending the QDRO would be easier than arguing with the plan administrator or taking them to court.

FWIW, I would be cautious about treating this as a new business for the 3 year auto enroll exemption. Even if a new LLC was formed, if it is the same location, same employees, and the same day to day operations, it may look more like a continuation of the old business rather than a brand new startup. It may also matter how the deal was structured, such as a stock or asset purchase, and whether any controlled group rules apply.

After tax contributions have to be deposited by January 30, 2026 to be counted for 2025 calendar year 415 limit.

A mid-year prospective reduction or suspension of the safe harbor contributions for HCEs is addressed in Notice 2020-52. III. CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR REDUCING CONTRIBUTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF HCEs As described in section II.B of this notice, contributions made on behalf of HCEs are not included in the definition of safe harbor contributions. Accordingly, a mid-year change that reduces only contributions made on behalf of HCEs is not a reduction or suspension of safe harbor contributions described in §§ 1.401(k)-3(g) and 1.401(m)-3(h). However, a mid-year change that reduces only contributions made on behalf of HCEs would be a mid-year change to a plan’s required safe harbor notice content for purposes of section III.B of Notice 2016-16. Therefore, in order to satisfy the notice and election opportunity conditions of section III.C of Notice 2016-16, which apply generally to changes that affect required safe harbor notice content and are not reductions or suspensions of safe harbor contributions, an updated safe harbor notice and an election opportunity must be provided to HCEs to whom the mid-year change applies, determined as of the date of issuance of the updated safe harbor notice.1 https://www.irs.gov/irb/2020-29_IRB#NOT-2020-52

I continue to be drawn to the divorce proceeding, including the domestic relations order (NOT the qualification of the order by the plan), in which B does not seem to have participated in the identification, valuation, or terms of division of the plan interest in the context of the larger division of property between A and B in the divorce proceeding. That is a state court matter in which there may have been ignorance, inattention, unfairness, deception, omission, or other skulduggery, or not. There is nothing* about federal QDRO rules that relates to what B “should” or could get from the plan in consequence of divorce. In fact, the plan is generally not supposed to have any concern for what happened in the state court and may/should look only at whether the proposed QDRO appears to be an actual domestic relations order. The alarm about A’s position and behavior relating to the plan (other than refusal to provide (1) benefit information necessary for fairly adjudicating or settling rights in the state court divorce proceeding, and (2) information about plan procedures) seems misguided, despite the bad optics relating to A. The bad things that may have happened — or things that should have happened and did not — probably happened (or not) in the state court. Which brings me back to, “What does B think B should be getting from the plan by way of benefits that B is not getting under the terms of the QDRO?” The answer probably relates to the terms of the domestic relation order — the product of the state court — not the qualification of the domestic relations order by the plan. *Well, almost nothing.

Happy retirement! I know I have a printoff of yours at least 20 years and four jobs ago detailing which Code sections don't apply to government plans, it's been a fantastic resource to have!

Thanks! And you're right--a big reason I waited this long to retire was that I didn't want to do so until I had something satisfying to do on the other side.

The rule for QDROs and RMDs is odd. See https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-1/subject-group-ECFR6f8c3724b50e44d/section-1.401(a)(9)-8#p-1.401(a)(9)-8(d)(2). YOu would think that once in a separate account it would be treated as the alternative payee's, but for RMD purposes it isn't. don't know why but that is what the Reg says. The alternate payee should consider @fmsinc's suggestion and roll the account balance into an IRA or she may be subject to this same RMD treatment next year, etc. That said, probably won't help with this year as the amount that is required to be an RMD this year normally cannot be rolled over. So, there likely would be two 1099-Rs issued, one with the RMD non-eligible rollover amount and one with the remaining eligible rollover amount.

100% this something that an experienced ERISA law firm should handle. This is NOT the type of VCP to cut your teeth on, even if you as a TPA want to start offering VCP services and have staff with the proper enrollment (CPA, ERPA, ETC) to do so.

To David Rigby’s questions about what might lurk in the deal documents, someone might consider adding, for each might-be provision: Is the supposed provision merely a wishful statement? If a provision is somebody’s obligation, exactly which person, whether artificial or human, is obligated? Is the obligation consistent with, or contrary to, applicable law? Or relevant law? Even if not contrary to law, is the obligation legally enforceable? By which person? A? B? Some other person, whether artificial or human? This is not advice to anyone. And Santo Gold might wonder: Does my company have a current service agreement with A? Does my company have a current service agreement with B? Does my company desire to revise either service agreement, or both?

A few thoughts (there are probably other relevant questions): Are the facts presented accurate? Are the facts presented complete? Did the buy-sell agreement contain any provisions relevant to the future of the plan? Did the buy-sell agreement alter (or attempt to alter) any plan provision of the A plan? Does A still exist or is it a wholly owned subsidiary of B? What does the A plan say about a distributable event? Does anyone in authority at B know what's going on? Has legal counsel for B made any statements about this?

Usually, I would not add anything to the responses of the wise folks on this thread but I have to commend the OP for questioning the response they received from "AI". While AI may give one a starting point, AI responses can be flat out wrong so, in my view, AI responses should always be viewed extremely critically. I fully agree with @Peter Gulia and @austin3515. I would like to add a couple of thoughts. OP notes that their initial query is in response to IRS Notice CP1348. The IRS's purview does not cover the entire universe of whether plan amounts can be used to pay penalties. So what occurs in an IRS Notice regarding prohibited transactions may not be the end of the story. Their purview only covers whether there is a prohibited transaction under 4975 and the consequences under the tax code. @austin3515 and, ultimately, @Peter Gulia look at the entire universe in bringing up the views of the DOL under ERISA. Also note that the concept of "plan assets" is an ERISA concept monitored by the DOL. In my experience, under ERISA, civil penalties assessed against fiduciaries, plan sponsors, or other parties for some sort of legal violations or prohibited transaction cannot be paid using plan assets. Plan assets must be used exclusively to provide benefits to participants and beneficiaries and to defray "reasonable administrative expenses." I have not researched this recently but my understanding is the DOL maintains that paying penalties from plan assets is not a reasonable expense and is strictly prohibited. DOL has stated that penalties under ERISA 502(i) must be paid by the party in interest involved in the transaction not the plan, and using plan assets to pay penalties is likely a breach of fiduciary duty. Also, regarding restoration or disgorgement as @Peter Gulia brings up, I have colleagues who distinguish between restoration/disgorgement, which are remedial in nature, as opposed to penalties, which are punitive in nature. They seem to imply that plan assets could be used for restoration or disgorgement but I must be thick-headed because I don't see it. How can you use plan assets to restore something to the plan? disgorge from plan? There may be circumstances that I am just not thinking of but it seems like a zero sum game.

Note that under ERISA a valid QDRO does not require the signatures of both parties. The essential legal requirement is that the order be issued or approved by a court of competent jurisdiction. However, judges normally insist on both signatures to confirm that the document accurately reflects the parties' divorce settlement before they will sign it…. having both signatures is the standard to avoid a contested court hearing but sometimes it is necessary to file a DRO only one signature (e.g., a former spouse refuses to cooperate, so the other spouse petitions the court to issue the order regardless of their lack of consent) but in these cases the judge usually requires that they show that the QDRO aligns with the existing court-ordered property division. If the OP wants to contest the property division, that’s a bigger issue than a QDRO

Might the pastor's choices be expressed in the form of a salary-reduction agreement that states a proper elective deferral?

First, an overview observation, and then an attempt to give a helpful answer. As someone that you might refer to as a QDRO lawyer, I see a lot of information and query that I think is very unlikely to matter in terms of determining whether or not the domestic relations order is a QDRO, including different vintages of plan document. A 401(k) account is a relatively easy thing to divide from a qualification perspective, assuming conventional liquid assets. Plan terms usually have no substantial effect. Because of the excess of text that appears to be irrelevant, it seems that there is a lot of confusion. The confusion also appears involve identification of the relevant “fiduciary” or fiduciaries who will be responsible for cutting through all of the noise and making decisions about the domestic relations order as qualified or not. The usual circumstances relating to a QDRO involve two pieces: (1) what part of the 401(k) account will the alternate payee get? This has everything to do with the divorce settlement and not necessarily anything to do with the terms of the 401(k) plan (except maybe vesting). The plan is totally agnostic about what the alternate payee should receive, except that the alternate payee cannot receive an amount or type of benefit that the plan does not provide for (which is a qualification matter and almost never an issue with a 401(k) plan). For determining the amount that the alternate payee should receive in the greater scheme of things, the parties need domestic relations lawyers to come up with a domestic relations order that I will refer to as the “divorce decree” which may or may not be the domestic relations order that is submitted to the plan to end up with a QDRO (probably not; see the explanation below about the role of the QDRO lawyer). (2) A domestic relations order (DRO) must be submitted to the plan in order to tell the plan what the divorce decree specifies to be the interest in the plan awarded to the alternate payee. The DRO must set forth the information that the relevant statutes require, which neatly corresponds to the information that the plan administrator (or other QDRO fiduciary) actually needs to administer the DRO and give the alternate payee what the divorce decree has determined that the alternate payee should get. Unfortunately, a QDRO lawyer (or other competent professional) may be required to make sure that the formal qualification requirements are satisfied. A QDRO lawyer will be concerned with plan terms, but, as mentioned before, plan terms usually have little effect. An experienced QDRO lawyer can probably put together a perfectly good domestic relations order while being almost blind to plan terms — not that they actually would. A QDRO lawyer is indifferent to the settlement terms that relate to what the alternate payee “should” receive from a 401(k) plan as long as the “what” is expressed in the divorce decree as a dollar amount or a percentage of the account balance as of a particular date. Valuation dates may be a matter affected by plan terms, which gets us to: (3) A common arrangement is for the domestic relations lawyer to have an association of sorts with a QDRO lawyer (or other professional) to make sure that the divorce decree defines the alternate payee’s interest in the plan in a way that can be implemented by the plan, such as by specifying a valuation date that is workable for the plan. The QDRO lawyer then drafts a domestic relations order that meet the qualification requirements to become a QDRO. So, the answer to your question is: both, especially since there seems to be so much confusion about what matters or not, and people seem to be enmeshed in a probably unnecessary push/pull. I am not unmindful of the misfortune that something that is conceptually quite simple ends up needing the assistance of expensive professionals to make things “right” whether or not anyone is made happy. Important addendum: No mention has been made of an extremely important document that plans are required to have: written procedures on qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO Procedures). If I were to have only one document from the plan, that is the one that I would request. However, while that document should be the most important and informative of all plan documents, that document often sucks and will disappoint. The QDRO Procedures may be incorporated into an SPD.

I agree with @justanotheradmin and also note that it is the Plan Sponsor's obligation to make sure that the plan amendment to the plan document was properly worded and fully executed, including doing so in a timely manner relative to the effective date of the change.

I think the auditors are probably right. you need to look at the formula of the match - if it is on an annual basis - and everyone is to receive a uniform percentage of pay based on deferrals - which is typical - why would someone who enters 4/1 or later be excluded? discretionary does not mean it can start stop any time - it usually means they can choose to give it one year or not. If they give it for that plan year, it needs to follow the formula in the document. Which sounds like is based on annual compensation and annual deferrals. If you let us know specifically what the document says for the annual based match formula maybe people can give more insight. If the sponsor wanted the ability to contribute match for some paydates and not others, the formula for the match needed to specify a payroll period or paydate basis. Not Annual.

The topic you ask about is full enough that Derrin Watson wrote a whole treatise, and over 28 years has revised it. Who’s the Employer https://www.erisapedia.com/static/WTE.pdf. While it’s tempting to seek a shortcut, a plan’s sponsor, participating employer, or administrator wouldn’t know which organizations and businesses are in or out of “the employer” until checking everything. Consider limiting your scope to what affects the design and administration of the one retirement plan you work on. Consider warnings that your work must not be relied on about how discerning who’s-the-employer for the one plan you work on affects employee-benefits plans of other organizations and businesses an owner of your client owns, whether indirectly or even directly. This is not advice to anyone. If you need advice, consider Ferenczy Benefits Law Center.

My pooled 401k plans are run on a recordkeeping system, ASC. I have multiple sources, including Roth, while using one pooled investment trust. The recordkeeping system tracks the sources, contributions, and earnings.

Here's my two cents on the OP's question. Taking into account the facts @Santo Gold has provided and assuming they are accurate, the plan administrator may want to do the following: Wait for a claim to be filed (see @Peter Gulia) or a request for information is made. If a potential beneficiary or estate representative makes a claim or requests information, the plan should provide them the information required for them to make a viable claim. Here, the proper question is being asked in the OP. The company must take care regarding who is actually entitled to receive communications or information about the benefit. Under the terms of the plan as quoted above (assuming the Adoption Agreement does not have a specific provision), the plan can only provide information to the decedent’s spouse, child, or estate representative. The plan must ensure that it gets any and all necessary documentation to identify that it is providing any detailed benefit information to a person who is authorized under the plan to receive that information. Perhaps, the first thing that should be requested from a person who states they are going to make a claim is for them to provide the plan a copy of the decedent’s death certificate. Usually if that person is a spouse, child, or estate representative, they should have access to the decedent’s death certificate. If they cannot provide one, we have advised plans to simply provide them the Plan’s SPD and point them to the provisions as to how to make a claim. Then tell them that to make a claim they need to provide a copy of the death certificate and documents supporting their status as a beneficiary (i.e., under the OP’s plan: the spouse—marriage certificate with decedent as spouse, child—birth certificate with decedent as parent, estate rep—letters testamentary, of administration, or of authority, depending on state law, etc.). If using a small estate affidavit, we would require an original notarized affidavit, certified by the clerk of court of the decedent’s last county/parish of primary residence, certified or long-form death certificate, government-issued photo ID, and proof of relationship (the plan would then request their attorney determine if the affidavit meet's applicable state law). In conjunction with these actions, the plan administrator, at a minimum, should check its other plan records for helpful information (e.g., group term life plans, welfare plans etc. for dependent or beneficiary info, if any) and have someone obtain a copy of the decedent’s obituary, which normally is available online and would list the decedent’s living relatives, if any. If there is a question concerning whether a spouse exists or an individual is the legal spouse, the plan administrator could also do a search of the marriage and divorce records in the county or parish in which the decedent had their primary residence. The clerk of court in that county or parish usually has a digital database that can be searched or procedures to request certified copies of these records. In some states, state vital records offices can provide one or both of the certificates. Also some states have services such as VitalChek, which partners with state and local government agencies to provide these documents. Searches for potential children are more complex and might be impractical. If the plan receives any information indicating there may be multiple beneficiaries or conflicting claims, it may want to notify the other potential beneficiary(ies) that a claim has been made for these benefits and they may wish to file a claim. They might not… we have had instances where a beneficiary did not make a claim for benefits for which they were the rightful recipient, attempting to bypass the tax consequences (e.g., a spouse did not want the benefit but wanted it to go to their children (a disclaimer in that instance would not have achieved that effect)) and the plan could not make the distribution based on the children’s claim for benefits (first, it had actual knowledge there was a spouse and, second, even if the spouse was considered deceased, the benefit would have went to the estate and not the children). Once the proper recipient of the plan account balance has been determined, the plan would notify the individual (or the executor, if it’s the estate) that they have the right to the benefit and give them the information they would need to apply for benefits to commence (copy of SPD and/or distribution forms) or detailing their abilities to leave money in the plan and when the latest date they can take a distribution. Depending on who is determined to be the proper recipient, the plan should request Social Security numbers and/or IRS Form W-9. Caution--Any distributions paid to the executor of an estate should be made payable to “[Name of Executor], as Executor of Estate of [Name of Employee]” or simply to “Estate of [Name of Employee]” (or a similar variation or a variation required by your plan recordkeeper). Any distributions paid to the deceased’s heirs under a small estate affidavit should be divided among the named heirs and paid directly to each of them. While the IRS rules normally allow beneficiaries to elect to rollover a qualified plan death benefit to an IRA (to avoid withholding taxes on the distribution), neither an estate nor the heirs listed in a small estate affidavit can elect a rollover distribution. The key legal proposition here is that ERISA Section 514(a) explicitly preempts state laws that “relate to” an employee benefit plan that is subject to ERISA, with limited exceptions for certain insurance, banking, and securities laws. Courts have interpreted this preemption language to mean that any state law that refers directly to an employee benefit plan, or that bears indirectly on an employee benefit plan, is not enforceable against an ERISA-governed employee benefit plan. See Egelhoff v. Egelhoff (essence--terms of the plan govern). The only state law that should be consulted is the law that supports the claimant’s status as spouse, child or executor/administrator/estate rep. FWIW, if a plan that has an order of precedence for designating beneficiaries as set forth in the TSP as noted above were presented to us by a client, we would vehemently recommend immediately amending that provision. Our view is that in no way should a plan take on the responsibility of making legal decisions under any state law. If the question is of immediate concern, like here, and we would not amend the provision to cover the instant decision, we would try to find a way to throw this into court and/or make someone else make the legal determination. (Note that the determination of who should receive these amounts under the laws of descent and distribution is the executor of the decedent’s estate.) Also, the plan administrator should ensure that they checked the plan terms to see if any employer contribution (matching, profit sharing, or other non-elective contribution) is due to the employee for the year of death. Some plans require that an employee normally be employed on December 31 or have completed 1,000 hours of service during the year to receive an employer contribution, but often those requirements are waived if the employee dies while employed. Also, confirm that the account uses the proper vesting as death often accelerates vesting. Not advice, just my two cents (does this idiom still have meaning as the penny is no longer being minted?)

You're spot on, actually. Failure to follow the plan document, for starters....

A situation that can become an infinite loop when a claim is in the wings but is not ripe to be made. For example, a QDRO-in-waiting that has not yet been submitted for qualification because a sponsor/participant's estate (which has already submitted letters testamentary to the TPA and stands in the shoes of the deceased sponsor/participant), cannot get the TPA to provide a current account statement. I have a client with that very issue right now (you may recall I'm a QDRO lawyer). Trustee sponsor/participant of very small plan dies after the court enters a property settlement, scant paper records in the decedent's estate, no copy of an executed beneficiary form; estate counsel pretty much ERISA-clueless. Sponsor company has a DC plan TPA'd by one firm, and a cash balance plan administered by another TPA. The cash balance TPA won't pony up a current account statement to the estate administrator/PR, so neither the estate nor the alternate payee for that plan can ascertain what exactly is there that is divisible between the estate and the alternate payee. Then, instead of providing a current account statement and their QDRO procedures document, the TPA decides, unbidden, to retain its own counsel to write a QDRO for the alternate payee (!), which, shocker, does not allocate the full components of the benefit, though nothing in the plan document prevents full allocation. (Of course, I would not allow my client to sign such an abomination.) Additionally, the cash balance TPA's benefit statement from several years ago (the only statement the estate has), is labeled for the sponsor's DC plan (the one administered by a different TPA), includes a single line item for the cash balance plan without identifying that plan as distinct from the entire rest of the statement. This is not a small-estate matter and there is likely 500k+ in the participant's hypothetical account. In 30 years of practice, I have never seen a TPA screw up this badly. I'm counting the misrepresentations, fiduciary breaches, and prohibited transactions, and wondering when they'll stop shooting themselves in the foot before I sue their pants off, as they're not listening to reason. Thank the stars original poster Santo Gold has the wits to ask their learned colleagues here for their thoughts when unsure.

Generally, no, that would not be allowable as it (deposit timing) would be a discriminatory BRF. Maybe 6% owner PS and 0% NHCE PS deposited throughout the year would be OK but as you say, there's no guarantee it would pass testing. If more NHCE PS is then required, would that create retroactive BRF discrimination? Maybe, probably would not know unless and until audited, if ever. Certainly going more than 6% is not a good idea. How important is getting that extra 6% in sooner compared to the possible risk? You can communicate the issues and, where there may be compliance ambiguity, the owner can decide how to proceed and accept any risk (but get it in writing). Another concern may be if PS provision has any conditions for entitlement in the document.

Also understand if the estate is small enough in many states the beneficiaries of the estate can use a "small estate affidavit" I am NOT an expert and it isn't really the TPA's job to educate people on them. But we see them on a regular basis and it seems to allow a fair amount of skipping of the probate process. You now know close to 100% of what I know and I am not sure if I helped or not.

For a reader who might explore the uses, here’s Internal Revenue Code § 401(b)(3) (as compiled in the United States Code): (3) Retroactive plan amendments that increase benefit accruals If— (A) an employer amends a stock bonus, pension, profit-sharing, or annuity plan to increase benefits accrued under the plan effective as of any date during the immediately preceding plan year (other than increasing the amount of matching contributions (as defined in subsection (m)(4)(A))), (B) such amendment would not otherwise cause the plan to fail to meet any of the requirements of this subchapter, and (C) such amendment is adopted before the time prescribed by law for filing the return of the employer for the taxable year (including extensions thereof) which includes the date described in subparagraph (A), the employer may elect to treat such amendment as having been adopted as of the last day of the plan year in which the amendment is effective. I.R.C. (26 U.S.C.) § 401(b)(3) https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title26/html/USCODE-2023-title26-subtitleA-chap1-subchapD-partI-subpartA-sec401.htm.

That's correct. The combined deduction limit doesn't apply if the DB plan is covered by PBGC. IRC 404(a)(7)(C)(iv)

On Santo Gold’s hypo, isn’t the account balance after the first loan is made still $50,000—that is, $25,000 participant loan receivable + $25,000 other investments? But wouldn’t ERISA § 408(b)(1) and Internal Revenue Code § 72(p)(2)(A) limit the amount for a second loan? Consider 29 C.F.R. § 2550.408b-1(f)(2)(i) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/section-2550.408b-1. Consider 26 C.F.R. § 1.72(p)-1/Q&A-20 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/section-1.72(p)-1. Even before applying the tax Code limits, ERISA § 408(b)(1) limits the outstanding balance of all loans to the participant to more than half the participant’s vested account (measured after the origination of each loan). On Santo Gold’s hypo, if the participant when applying for a second loan has not yet repaid anything on the first loan, isn’t the second loan $0?

Link updated and happy to have it still. I liked the acknowledgment of Ms Carol’s contributions on the page. Well done Bakers!

As long as the fee is allowed by the plan, is reasonable, and disclosed in the participant fee disclosure notices I don't see a problem with it, though maybe I'm overlooking something. There are things you need to send participants beside payments at retirement or RMD age and if they don't notify you of address changes someone needs to pay to locate them, I don't see where charging the participant is problematic if it is part of the Plan's on going operations and uniformly applied.

Add another voice that is objecting to the annual part of this idea. We look for or advise our clients to look for people when it is relevant. Although places like Inspira people send a lot of forced out to IRAs to them does an annual search. Not sure if it is part of the base fee they charge those IRAs or an add on What I do know is that a few hundred in an Inspira IRA needs to have an incredible rate of return to not have the balance go down annually.

There has been some discussion on that before in this forum. The consensus seemed to be that this is definitely a gray area and that the amendment and document language matters - meaning either interpretation is possible. You could likely amend to unfreeze if needed to accomplish your objective, if not for the entire benefit formula at least for average compensation.

That's a question that needs be directed to an attorney familiar with applicable state law. I'm the executor of my Dad's estate. After the court hearing to approve me as executor, the court provided a Letters Testamentary that shows I'm the executor of the estate. I'm in Texas, but would expect something similar in other states. The client's legal counsel should be able to tell them what kind of documentation is needed to show who represents the estate. If the participant didn't have enough assets to justify opening an estate, most states have rules for dealing with small estates without formally opening an estate. Again, the client's legal counsel should be able to assist. Just being named in the will as the executor doesn't necessarily mean they are the executor. At least in my state, the executor has to be approved by the court, if an estate is opened. Approval may just be a formality, but I did have to agree to it.

This particular provision has actually expired: However, SECURE 2.0 sec. 350 codified essentially the same correction method into law at IRC sec. 414(cc). See also Notice 2024-02 section I, which gives further guidance, including how to apply 414(cc) to terminated participants.

Why do I get the feeling this is happening for hundreds and hundreds of plans...

I'll never understand why M&A attorneys aren't sued for ignoring retirement plan issues prior to the transaction date.