Leaderboard

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong as it's been a few years, but my recollection is that any current participant with an accrued benefit would need to have the existing (more favorable) NRA rule apply to their accrued benefit as of the date of the amendment. Any new contributions could be subject to the new NRA. Like a vesting change, this would require tracking pre- and post-amendment balances. In the small handful of times I've done this, the plan sponsor has always applied the new NRA only to participants newly eligible on or after the effective date of the amendment. And it will likely only affect a small handful of people. Anyone who has already met the six-year (or less) vesting schedule will not be affected at all, regardless of age, unless there is some other right tied to NRA (e.g., in-service distributions). So a 58-year-old participant with 20 years of service will not be adversely affected, even if their "new" NRA is 65.

When a company wants to have 401k plan and health insurance enrollment occur on the same day, we will use either 30/ 60 days because this is the way the health insurance documents are written.

I strongly second Dare Johnson's suggestion for pooled investments when markets volatile (really, always, because you never know when they'll become volatile). You want to have frequent valuations (quarterly, monthly), and pay out based on the next valuation date following the receipt of the completed distribution request. If you want to pay out a percentage in the meantime, you can do that. More need for that if you're using less frequent valuation dates. You still need to reserve the right to do special valuation dates if there is a large market swing. And it all needs to be put into your plan document and communicated in an SPD or SMM.

This has always been an issue when the markets are down significantly. The few non-daily plans we have left will pay our a percentage of the last valuation (usually 60-70%) with the remaining after the next valuation. This is fair to the remaining participants.

Self-directed brokerage is generally a type of 404(c). If you remove the explicit claim to 404(c) from the document, the plan fiduciaries would in theory be responsible for the results of the participants' choices. A judge with common sense (or anyone with common sense) might not see it that way, but why take out the 404(c) language?

I think you are OK. Doesn't DC TH-min require employment on last day of the year? So you shouldn't have a 411 cutback issue.

ERISA provides (and, although I readily admit my lack of expertise in this area, I have to guess that so do most states' laws provide) civil penalties for a participant to recover against a fiduciary in the event of a breach of their fiduciary duty. However in a plan that covers only the owner of a company, the fiduciary and the participant are typically the same person. I struggle to imagine any scenario in which a person would be inclined to sue themselves. In the case of a plan which covers, for example, two or more partners in a partnership (and no employees) then I could see a potential issue, but even then you have one partner suing another which is likely to involve much more than just the retirement plan. I am curious about what sorts of situations you had in mind when you posed this question. As I said, my knowledge of states' fiduciary and trust law is very limited so it's entirely possible there is some subtlety I am missing. Regarding prohibited transactions, a 401(a)-qualified plan is still subject to Code section 4975. For what it's worth, I have never had the sponsor of a plan which covers only owners ask me about fiduciary issues (although I have had a number ask me if a particular action would be a prohibited transaction...in those cases, if they have to ask, the answer is usually yes).

In case anyone is still interested, I posted some additional thoughts on this issue here: https://www.theabdteam.com/blog/lifestyle-spending-account-compliance-considerations/