Leaderboard

Yeah, kind of like college athletics recruiting - or apparently now just college entrances.

As long as it is not covering the same expense twice it should be fine. In other words, I have a medical bill for $10,000. I believe that I have $5,000 available elsewhere so I take a $5,000 hardship to cover the balance. I end up not being able to pay the other $5,000 so I need another hardship. As long as the combined hardship withdrawals do not exceed the documented expense it shouldn't be a problem.

I've sometimes taken the position that such trailing dividends as well as the resulting payouts were "pending" - I guess you could call them accrued. I'm not saying it's right and ya takes yer chances I guess but...how is it going to come up in the first place, and in the second place, I think I could talk my way through it if necessary. Sux that this would happen after the plan was term'd in September...

Possibly. Those who are very conservative from an ERISA compliance perspective would not hire an existing client or even a prospective client to be a plan service-provider where there is a record that they have been trying to land that prospective client. Most aren't that conservative, even those who understand the ERISA rules of fiduciary responsibility and the PT rules. On the other hand, the risk is somewhat mitigated if not eliminated as a practical matter if the fees of the service-provider (in this case, the Custodian) are paid by the employer and not by the plan.

We could start a new thread to recount stories about what happened when the specter of prohibited transactions was made apparent to unsuspecting partygoers. I have been dismissed from a transaction or two. I have also had others angrily walk out of the room. I have also testified before a federal grand jury. It turns out that what we ERISA practitioners know as certain prohibited transactions are also prohibited by the U.S. criminal code.

I think ESOP Guy's initial response was spot on. You can tell a former employee that you have no record of any further benefit due them from the plan, insinuate that they have been paid out, ask them to check there records and hope they go away - and most often they do. But if they don't, 100% burden of proof is on the sponsor - so whenever someone (client or co-worker) asks how long a PLAN SPONSOR should keep records, my answer is always FOREVER. And there is no reason not to convert old paper records into electronic copies and retain. The big problem is that plan sponsors can't jump in their Deloreans and go back to the 70's and 80's and restore the paper records they lost/destroyed prior to the electronic age, together with their impression that their providers were responsible for maintaining all those records. For some, it could be costly case of wishing they'd known then what they know now.

Even if it isn't a PT like shERPA says it is a clear fiduciary breach. The last time I heard anyone try this was in the '90s. Here is a link to an IRS website on fiduciary duties. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plan-fiduciary-responsibilities The first thing listed is: acting solely in the interest of the participants and their beneficiaries; They aren't acting "solely in the interest of the participants and their beneficiaries" if they are doing this to get the company a lower loan rate. I am actually shocked there is a bank still trying this. Any sponsor who does this and gets caught is in a world of hurt.

To the original poster: Please do not send any personal information to this person - or anyone else - until you have vetted the person/company. Anything you send should have a password or some other security.

SSA is not always the best at removing folks, even when reported with a D code, especially if the D code was reported long ago. The last 4 participants to call our office with one of those SSA letters where all reported as D on the SSA in the year they were paid out.

The simple fact is ERISA puts the burden on the plan to prove the person was paid not the other way around. It pays to send in those D codes on 8955-SSAs. My motto is: when in doubt D. For some clients I have gone back and gotten every old SSA and put anyone we came to be unsure if a D code was filed back in the days when it wasn't required. I have had a lot of luck simply writing a letter to someone telling them the plan shows they do not have a benefit any more. But if they push it the burden is on the plan. The plan sponsor ought to keep records that can prove they paid someone forever is the thinking of the lawyers who come around here and I am sure they will tell you that in reply to your question.

Agreed - which leads me to believe it wasn't a 100% J&S....

The answer to that question is "yes, but" as it is your husband who should be seeking counsel. Let me see if I can clarify (and I am NOT giving advice here). It appears, if you are correct that he selected a 100% survivor benefit (in our parlance, a 100% joint and survivor benefit) then he (or his "survivor") would expect that upon his death, the "survivor" would continue to get the same amount of benefit as he was receiving before his death. In your example, $1000. If it truly is a 100% J&S benefit, that would be a good assumption, but it is an open question. VERIFY that (as there may have been options available, such as a 50% J&S, 66-2/3% J&S and a 75% J&S). To the extent the ex-spouse actually gets 50% of the pension (determined at the time the pension starts), one would expect her "$500' to continue - and not change as a result of his death (ASSUMING the QDRO says what you say it does). The the question is "what's left" for you - and that depends and the underlying facts behind the assumptions I laid out. The facts in these situations are extremely important - which is why your husband should seek counsel to assist in understanding and/or enforcing his/your rights as defined by the QDRO and the pension plan.