Leaderboard

Wishing you all a safe, happy, relaxing and enjoyable Labor Day holiday weekend, however you choose to celebrate!

With my family and friends, we celebrate that source of my employment with an ice-cream cake, saying "Happy birthday, ERISA!"

I agree the contributions have to be made. We did have a situation like this and were able to get the participant to agree to pay back some of the stolen money with plan money. It was done right in the courtroom. Part of the deal for a more lenient sentence.

Belgarath, you should be aware that, in some cases, the plan document may specify how the plan may be amended, including how an amendment may be adopted. You should consider both the plan document and corporate law (with the advice of an attorney) to get the correct answer. If the Plan document contains such a provision, then it would override otherwise applicable state law to the extent consistent with ERISA and the Code.

The 50% of the balance amount for a loan is only relevant when the loan is issued. After that, the participant still has access to all the rights in the plan.

What kind of cake should ERISA celebrate with?

Same to you - enjoy your weekend! And don't forget, happy 48th birthday to ERISA!

Agree 5558 is the best option for extensions, especially since it often adds a month versus the tax return extension. Since return due dates are tied to year-end (fiscal and/or plan) I would think having the same year-end would suffice rather than requiring the entire plan and fiscal years to be identical, but I do not know that for certain.

About your second question: Among the exceptions to a retirement plan’s anti-alienation provision is the United States’ enforcement of a judgment imposing a fine or restitution regarding a crime. Beyond ERISA’s and the Internal Revenue Code’s provisions, the employer’s or plan administrator’s lawyer might consider these statutes: 18 U.S.C. §§ 3316, 3556, 3663, 3663A, 3664; 28 U.S.C. §§ 3001-3308. With increasing frequency and intensity, Federal prosecutors seek restitution for a victim, and do so in ways that enable invading the wrongdoer’s retirement plan benefits. For an illustration of one of those ways, see BenefitsLink’s recent news about Evan Greebel: https://benefitslink.com/news/index.cgi/view/20220824-173391 https://benefitslink.com/news/index.cgi/view/20220826-173452

I'm certainly no lawyer, but if I were the Plan Administrator (and so foolish that I didn't believe in paying for legal advice, so making my own determination) I would interpret this such that the contingent beneficiary(ies) would receive the death benefit. If the amount involved is quite small, I think it would be reasonable to take the "risk" - such as it is - of making my own determination as Plan Administrator.

There is a thread or two in regards to this. If I recall correctly, there wasn't much an employer could do to recoup moneys from the retirement plan. The best advice was to work with the prosecuting attorney to work out a deal of repayment. Not sure if any law changes have been made to help these situations...

Bri is correct - there are two pieces in play here: (1) does the plan provide for mandatory cash-outs (a) under $5,000, (b) under $1,000, or (c) not at all; and (2) if (1)(a) then the document must have the default IRA rollover provision for distributions between $1,000 and $5,000, and could allow for distributions less than $1,000.

What was involved in checking? If you mean you looked them up on the DOL's website, you won't find them there, because it does not show 5500-EZs. If you believe that the Form 5500-EZ was not filed for one or more years for which it was required, then file the missing forms as soon as possible under the IRS relief program. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/penalty-relief-program-for-form-5500-ez-late-filers

I think a second resolution saying "never mind" fixes this problem. I'm not a lawyer but I don't think a resolution is irrevocable.

I think your plan document still has to have forceout provisions in it to start. (Is that the question? Whether or not you can use the auto-IRA rules if they're not in the document?) I think 401a31B is saying you have to auto-IRA balances only if you're mandating the distribution and it exceeds 1,000. But the plan would have to provide for the mandatory distribution in the first place.

Yes, but not by much. I would also say that there is no reason to NOT have a bond with an inflation guard / escalation rider/ add your favorite name here. There is just not enough of a premium difference.

I believe it depends upon the company. I've seen "packages" where price is locked in for 2 or 3 years, even if bonding amount increases, etc., etc. - but I really don't have any direct contact with actual insurance companies for ERISA bonds - we just tell the employer to get the bond, and to contact their insurance broker. Here's the list of approved vendors: https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/surety-bonds/list-certified-companies.html

BenefitsLink neighbors, does the insurance premium differ between a coverage limit of $125,000, $250,000, or $500,000?

If you are working on the 2021 plan year, then the bond is generally based on the prior year value - while most folks use the prior year 12/31 value, it technically is the highest amount handled during that prior year. If the value increases during 2022, you don't need to increase the bond. Most of them that I see now have an automatic increase rider on the bond as assets increase.