Leaderboard

Unless the plan includes lump sum as a distribution option, the Plan Administrator is not permitted to pay your benefits in that form. The direct rollover provisions you cite are generic statutory provisions and do not mean that the plan has a lump sum option. The plan section describing optional forms of payment will disclose whether or not lump sum is an option. Sorry for your predicament, but unfortunately the rules (if being followed) cannot be bent to accommodate you.

May not be required, but kind of a crappy move to not do it.

How much would it cost to give 100% vesting? Usually, not much. Take the high road, please.

Another wrinkle: Sometimes people describe a source of potential coverage as health insurance when it is not. I have a credit-card-sized piece of plastic that bears a Blue Cross logo. Almost anyone who isn’t an employee-benefits practitioner calls it an insurance card. But if I read the reverse side’s fine print, that text warns: “Your health benefits are funded entirely by your employer. QCC Insurance Company provides administrative and claims payment services only.” Whatever State law or rule governs an insurer’s health insurance contract might not govern an ERISA-governed employee-benefit plan, at least not if the plan uses no health insurance contract (and no precedential court decision interprets ERISA to apply an insurance-law or model coordination-of-benefits rule in meaningfully similar circumstances). Courts’ decisions vary on questions about how to construe or interpret a governing document’s text, and about whether to infer, import, or invent a coordination-of-benefits provision.

I apologize if I misunderstood the response and truly appreciate the responses. No unions and there are a lot of highly compensated employees. I'll have to run the numbers and see if there's a way I can do it. Again, I apologize and truly appreciate everyone's time/responses

I've often thought that we should come up with a well-rounded caveat, and then people could put it in their sigs, or maybe have a link to a page or a message thread that contains its text, etc. "Of course, there are details, some of which might be important to your particular factual situation, which I certainly don't know, and as to which I haven't asked all the questions that one would need to ask in order to ferret out other potentially relevant issues (meaning my comments here and elsewhere on thesde message boards are intended to be helpful information, but you should not and cannot rely upon them as my legal or other professional advice)." (First draft)

Even with a perfect allocation of responsibilities between or among the administrators, remember that ERISA § 405(a) imposes some co-fiduciary responsibilities regarding any other fiduciary’s breach. If a fiduciary “has knowledge” of another fiduciary’s breach, the observing fiduciary must “make[] reasonable efforts under the circumstances to remedy the breach.” ERISA § 405(a)(3). In doing so, the observing fiduciary must use no less care, skill, prudence, and diligence than an experienced fiduciary would use.

"Plan administrator" means the ERISA 3(16) plan administrator. That entails a lot more than just signing the 5500. If you want to know more, is just so happens that Ilene Ferenczy is doing a free webcast in less than a couple of hours from now on this very topic. You can register at http://www.erisapedia.com/webcasts

Potential big difference for securities law compliance. If anyone cares. Document providers and TPAs typically don’t care. One wonders if the SEC or state enforcers care. Which is why you are wondering WTF this post is about.

As an FYI, I had always considered a "Related Employer" to be a firm that had some connection (like 1 person owned 100% of A and 50% of B with another person owning the remaining 50%) whether or not it actually reached controlled group or ASG status. Found out a short while ago that the plan document actually defines Related Employer and it has to be part of CG or ASG. Others might have already known this but I had assumed incorrectly. Pays to RTFD.

Generally, related employers are those that are in a control group or affiliated service group of employers. You consider the related employers as a single employer when applying the qualified plan rules for such things as coverage and nondiscrimination. Example, A is parent company that owns 100% of subsidiaries B & C and sponsors a 401(k) in which employees of A, B & C are all eligible to participate. This is considered a single employer plan. A multiple employer plan is a plan in which more than one unrelated employer participates. Example, companies A, B & C are each owned 100% by three separate unrelated individuals who are friends from college and decide to adopt the same 401(k) plan for their employees to gain economies of scale. This would be a multiple employer plan.