Leaderboard

Simply allocating to separate accounts for beneficiaries is not a distribution. Without a distribution, there can be no rollover. Without an election there can be no rollover. I would also want to see plan terms that allowed a person who is not an employee or participant to roll over into the plan. I think you just have separate accounts that are waiting for something to happen. Check plan terms about distributions to beneficiaries.

Just wondering - if they didn't sign anything, does a plan even exist?

EE 1: 5 years EE 2: 3 years EE 3: 2 years EE 4: 2 years At first it looks like only 2. But EE 4 turned 62 in 2013 and became 100% vested at NRA. So, now you have three. Just my guess.

Still worth shaming. The misuse of terminology creates a quantitatively and qualitatively different impression and an appropriate impression of what is involved is important from the very beginning of contemplation of the action.

Please identify the arrogant and ignorant consultant. This is appropriate for public shaming.

Isn't it well-known that a 403(b) plan cannot be merged into a 401(a) plan, or vice versa? Perhaps it is appropriate to use air-quotes: "consultant". Perhaps there are some fees available for cleaning up the other mergers referenced in the original post?

It doesn't sound common or reasonable to me. If we got such a request for the plans we sponsor, we'd ask the auditor why they need this information. Unless the employees who work on the plan are paid from plan assets, what's the point of having this (inaccurate) estimate of time and dollars spent by the sponsor?

Given that I don't personally know whether one can merge a 403(b) plan into a 401(a) plan (can one?), but I wish to point out that the consultant saying that they have merged many 403(b) plans into 401(a) plans should, by itself, give only cold comfort. If it is not permitted, that just means that the consultant has been getting it wrong over and over and over again!

...a carefully worded one.... That said, "legally" the only requirement would be an SMM (if it is a plan change) or a notice (if an administrative one). Practically, it's probably going to be perceived as a "take away" at least by some, so justification for the decision should be included (studies show.... best interests of the participants.... fiduciary responsibility....)

well, we have resolved to ask the insurer how they determined the premiums for past years, and asking the prior tpa for their explanations, but meanwhile we are proceeding assuming that future years will not be fully insured, nor exempt from actuarial certification.

I want to give a little more insight into why I take this position (FWIW). Earlier in my career, I actually left a daily provider to work for a Balanced Forward Provider (because balanced forward, at that time, seemed to provide the best opportunity to learn and apply all the rules). In a balanced forward environment, this would be a non-issue; the default would've happened on the December 31st valuation date. Applying many of these rules on a daily platform creates more of a challenge as everything is process prospectively while "compliance dates" or "as of dates" are used to illustrate the appropriate time-frame. When it comes to actually offsetting a loan, you'd have to actually back-date the offset; which can be done but operates against the normal operation of a daily platform. If a December 31st payroll comes in on January 8th, you'd then see that payment wasn't made and go back and process a retroactive default to December 31st (changing the Year End Reporting and each day loan balance between January 1st and January 7th. So, I agree with Bird on his argument that the Regulations are clear. I just see an potential issue on many daily platforms to administer this issue. A balanced forward platform could easily administer it because EVERYTHING is done on a accrual basis. I just wanted to add that insight because many "newbies" (and I can say that ) have never experienced a balance forward platform. Good Luck!