Leaderboard

As a suggested starting point for this inquiry, what does the plan say?

last time this question was asked I vaguely recall posting the following from the IRS, FAQ regarding minimum distributions. In particular, Question 7 Can an account owner withdraw more than the RMD? Now, because I am treating this like "Christmas in August" and I am the Grinch, I will make at least one person download the word file and post the answer, just so someone in the future has a copy of this. :D FAQs regarding Required Minimum Distributions.doc

Pog: I'm not sure the submission to the employer of the deceased participant (even if not the current plan sponsor) is something to fear - as it was acting as an agent of the plan on behalf of one who accrued an interest in the plan while employed by that entity (if I understand the facts correctly). The "date" of receipt by the actual plan or plan sponsor is less relevant than the date the form was actually signed - which is the participant's act of designating the beneficiary. I agree it looks like there may have been some "sloppiness" in the process but that doesn't mean a breach occurred. Does the plan still have the money or was a distribution made? If the plan has the money, interplead it and wash your hands of the matter. Let the court decide who gets it. If the plan doesn't have the money,well - no matter what happens, there is probably litigation in the plans future.

OK. I think people are overthinking this. Either the "new" beneficiary form is valid, or it is not. Simply sending out a blank beneficiary form is not a breach of any ERISA fiduciary obligation that I am aware of. Determining whether the returned form is a valid beneficiary designation IS a fiduciary function. 1) Who are the fiduciaries of the plan? They are the ones to make the determination. 2) What is the process for determining the validity of a beneficiary designation? Was it followed? 3) Has the money been distributed? If not, consider an "interpleader" of the funds with a court. The problem here is that there are a LOT of allegations. I wouldn't advise any of my clients to accept as FACT any of the allegations of ANY of the parties. To do so invites litigation - and the truth is that ONLY litigation will determine with finality (from the plan's perspective) who is the legitimate beneficiary, and if the plan fiduciaries breached their duties (keeping in mind that the overriding "standard" to which they will be held is a "prudent expert" and even if the plan distributed benefits to a forger, that in and of itself does not mean that they breached their FIDUCIARY duties (although they may be liable to recover the funds from the fraudster). Typically, the plan and fiduciaries will become "passive" participants as the real dispute will be between the purported beneficiaries. I'd tell the lawyer to file a lawsuit - and then respond by counterclaiming and filing a third party complaint against the "new" beneficiary and let the court sort it out. Sorry - but any other solution will leave the plan and it's fiduciaries in limbo no matter what they do.

Hi gang, I have done a little rearranging and pruning of the message boards: * Moved all messages in BLAZE SSI message board and all messages in the the ASPPA C-1 through C-4 Courses message board into a new Continuing Professional Education message board, located in the Retirement Plans category. Deleted the separate category called Continuing Professional Education; deleted the separate Blaze SSI message board and ASPPA C-1 through C-4 Courses message board. * Moved the Nonqualified Deferred Compensation message board out of the Retirement Plans category and into the Employee Benefits in General category. * Renamed the Employee Benefits in General category to be Employee Benefits in General; Executive Compensation. (The Nonqualified Deferred Compensation message board seems happier in this category, where 409A Issues and Securities Law Aspects of Employee Benefit Plans have been and continue to be living.) * Added some "see also" verbiage to the descriptions of several message boards (Governmental Plans, IRAs and Roth IRAs, Distributions and Loads Other than QDROs), pointing the reader to related and sometimes more specific message boards. * Shortened some of the descriptions (for Relius Administration, ERPA). * Moved Retirement Plans in General to appear as the first message board in the Retirement Plans category rather than being down in the list of message boards (alphabetically). * Renamed the Global Benefits message board to be the International, Expat Benefits message board. If I've done anything that seems ill-advised or wrong, please let me know. Thanks very much for using the BenefitsLink message boards! Dave Baker Administrator

Then, presumably the auditors would have no reluctance to point you toward the table (tables) that should be used?