Leaderboard

We have often found that a letter explaining the SSA reporting issues, that "may be entitled" does not mean "is entitled" and that all plan liabilities were satisfied upon plan termination, which was audited by the PBGC, and their benefit was either previously distributed prior to or in conjunction with the plan termination (SOL standing for something else here). If you know the identity of the insurer you can refer them there in case an annuity was purchased. Also suggest they review their own records - bank statements, IRA statements, etc. for their prior receipt of the distribution This usually satisfies the participant, especially if the benefit is relatively small. it certainly helps if records are maintained and the courts have definitely sided with claimants if the employer did not retain sufficient records - but the goal is not to get to that point.

Weellll - having previously worked for a large corporation, I can say that they sometimes settle completely bogus claims, where there is realistically no chance of losing, (but never say never) just to clear it up. Sadly, this often saves them money, so they pay $3,000 to make it go away. The plaintiff contacts an attorney. The attorney then sends a letter to defendant, threatening to sue, but willing to discuss an "amicable" settlement, and sometimes the defendant pays a small amount. It is a game played by the attorneys with, no doubt, zillions of permutations, but I've seen it happen. To those of us who were non-lawyers, it used to drive us crazy sometimes. I'm sure some of the attorneys here can relate horror stories - anyway, I'm of the opinion that IF the proof of distribution can be produced - do it and try to head off trouble. So I'm agreeing with My 2 Cents. As galling as it may be, sometimes refusing to pick a fight is the best option.

The problem with that is many of the claims resulting from the SSA notice come long after the records have been purged or are otherwise unavailable. Say the person was paid out in 1988, the employer merged into Company A in 1994, Company A merged into Company B in 2002, Company B was sold in 2007... Who can produce a copy of either the paperwork or a plan fund statement from 30 years and 3 or 4 companies ago? Besides which, if the employer can locate the distribution record, everyone's life is simplified by the employer providing a copy to the claimant as soon as possible (who will never get to the point of even threatening litigation, since even non-lawyer claimants know better than to bother with lawsuits based on not being able to remember a transaction for which the other party can produce evidence).

RBG, as to your last paragraph, do they object to being paid wages for their work? I think not. The employer contributions are just deferred wages for their work, possibly subject to vesting conditions, but deferred wages nonetheless.

Even those who waive out are considered for coverage, though.

Part II of Schedule C is where you list service providers who "fail or refuse to provide information". Tailor-made for this situation. Too bad for the investment company if your reporting them there causes them grief! If you want to file the 5500 and don't have their information, put them in Part II and file.

the reg language (that I am now adding to my EOB notes) 12 CFR 226.3 Exempt transactions. This regulation does not apply to the following: 12 CFR Part 226.3(g) Employer-sponsored retirement plans. An extension of credit to a participant in an employer-sponsored retirement plan qualified under Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, a tax-sheltered annuity under Section 403(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, or an eligible governmental deferred compensation plan under Section 457(b) of the Internal Revenue Code ( 26 U.S.C. 401(a); 26 U.S.C. 403(b); 26 U.S.C. 457(b)), provided that the extension of credit is comprised of fully vested funds from such participant's account and is made in compliance with the Internal Revenue Code ( 26 U.S.C. 1et seq.).

EOB, CH 14, Section II, Part B, 2.d.4) Regulation Z (Truth In Lending) does not apply to participant loans. Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. Part 226, §226.3(g), 74 F.R. 5244 (January 29, 2009), which implements the Truth In Lending Act, as been amended to exempt an extension of credit to a participant in an employer-sponsored retirement plan. This includes loans from qualified plans described in IRC §401(a), section 403(b) plans, and governmental 457(b) plans. In order for the exemption to apply, the loan must be made from fully vested funds from the participant’s account and must be made in compliance with the requirements of the tax code. The amendment is effective July 1, 2010. Prior to July 1, 2010, Regulation Z applied to a plan that has made more than 25 loans in the preceding year. The 25-loan threshold was decreased to 5 in the case of loans secured by a dwelling. ERISA does not preempt the Truth-In-Lending rules, so the federal government was able to apply these rules to loans without regard to ERISA. The elimination of these rules with respect to participant loans should help simplify the process of making loans from plans.