Leaderboard

Interesting. What I would call this list is "HR outsourcing" and not "3(16) services." I don't see any of these as "fiduciary" functions - and the latter two are things we as a bundled service provider do as well - without additional charge - and mostly without plan sponsor involvement.

I don't know that it is animosity towards those who profess being "fiduciary" 3(16) service providers, but rather what is perceived as being "unclear" marketing - where some of those providers profess 1) to REDUCE the fiduciary liability of the plan sponsor (bullsh!t!); and 2) they profess to relieve HUGE burdens being placed on plan sponsors (when in reality, many bundled service provider do most of the things you list, and many TPAs can do so as well in a NON-fiduciary capacity). That which is "nefarious" is the promises of doing so much more for plan sponsors, when people like me sit back and scratch our heads and think - we've been doing most of that already for 20 years or so. The things we don't do - like "sign" a form 5500 are not exactly perceived of by the industry or it's clients as being burdensome. Hence, my initial request of: I would add - why are the services you list above something that can't be done by a non-fiduciary service provider?

Geeze, that's a pretty pertinent piece of information to this discussion. Of course if you are the one doing everything it is only appropriate and fair that you should take responsibility for it. I personally relish the opportunity to have an open MEP plan for all those reasons - an Open MEP where part of it is that each participating employer has to use the same payroll provider that we can work with. That's not too much different than what you are describing. But that's just not the same thing as me being hired as TPA and being a 316 which is really what my comments are targeted to. You are doing 316 the right way. It's not you I have a gripe with.

TPA Jake, I cant imagine how you can do what you are saying unless you are the one processing the payroll, etc. Are you part of an employee leasing copany where you are directly employing the people who are participating in these plans? I just don't have access to the day-to-day procedures to be able to prevent and/or detect these things.

http://www.contingenciesonline.com/contingenciesonline/20100708?pg=15#pg15

How do you, a "fiduciary", contract out of your co-fiduciary responsibility under ERISA?

I wouldn't want him handling things for me if that is what he believes! the logic is flawed, but that has been proven before. I would agree loans are not usually a good idea, but to say they are double taxed is another thing.

Plan docs can limit the number of times participants can take in-service withdrawals.

TPA Jake - We are a TPA who could easily double our fees and be a 316. We struggle with what additional value we are adding. I can already mail notices without being a fiduciary, and I'll charge an hourly rate to do so. Compile the census? Give me a payroll download from your payroll provider and I'm good to go. But listen, to rebeat a dead horse. If you have a client who neglects to tell you who the family members are; or if the client census does not use the proper definition of compensation; or if your client failed to automatically enroll a participant who is eligible; or if they reported incorrect hours for someone and the vesting was incorrect; or if they hired a temporary employee without telling you this and did not recognize that service for eligibility; or if the client deposited Johnny's money into Susan's account and Susan already took a full distribution by the time it was discovered; or if the client forgot to send in the 401k withheld from the bonus run; or if the plan document does not exclude bonus, but the client failed to withhold 401k and therefore match from the bonus; and on and on and on and on; who is responsible? I've just listed the kinds of problems that have gotten my clients into trouble. And as a 316 I cannot figure out how to take responsibility for any of it. Have you had a critical matter arise related to a Summary Annual Report, or the formality of signing a 5500? How about a critical issue related to a fidelity bond? the answer for me is no and no and no. So what the heck would I be charing all of that money for? Listen, I hope you have an answer, because I would LOVE to double my fees, and that's the God's honest truth.

if you can pass different testing you can exclude groups but with a DB plan you have the additional minimum participation test. if there are any HCEs in the DB plan this might be difficult

Also note, a payment under the terms of a QDRO from the plan to the alternate payee will be taxable to the alternate payee. But if there is no QDRO, and a participant payment occurs which is signed over to the alternate payee, well then the participant gets taxed on the payout, not the alternate payee.

Of course she can charge him for paying by check, in the sense she can offer him a smaller amount by check outside of the 403(b) in exchange for him agreeing to have the court void the QDRO. This may be the best alternative for both parties. The check she writes him would be considered part of the property settlement (and thus not taxable to him), so he could end up with as much money after taxes even if the check is less. Meanwhile, by writing a check, she increases the amount she will ultimately get from the 403(b) by more than the amount of the check (because he will no longer get anything from the 403(b)), without it being treated as a contribution to the 403(b) subject to the usual maximum limits. Yes, they should have thought of all this before entering into the QDRO. But if both parties are willing to amend the QDRO, better late than never (unless the costs associated with amending the QDRO are so high as to make the whole thing uneconomic).