Leaderboard

We deal primarily with smaller plans, and I'm a huge fan of self-certification. I realize things may be different for large plans. I've never really agreed that the Plan Administrator should have to be the policeman for hardship requests. In terms of "leakage" - and this is speaking purely from experience with our book of business - our experience is that nearly all of the hardship requests are from people with small account balances. The sad fact is that if these folks retired with $15k in their account, it will make very little difference in their retirement, so if they spend it now, (some possibly fraudulently) so be it. It is probably because I'm getting grumpier in my old age - with the continuous onslaught of rules and regulations that fall upon qualified plans and the administration thereof, I'm very glad to see something like this that actually works to relieve some of the burden.

I agree, and I want in on that bet. I expect the "may" is meant not to decide WHO is allowed to do a rollover, but more WHAT rollovers may be accepted. The Plan Administrator has the right to reject a rollover request if, for example, it would jeopardize the tax-qualified status of the plan, or if there's no evidence that the rollover is from acceptable qualified source, etc., etc.

That's right.

I advise big plans, but through my work as counsel to recordkeepers and other service providers I have deep experience with mid-size, small, and micro plans. Here’s one more way of considering why public law (and plan sponsors’ choices) shouldn’t make a plan’s administrator a decider of whether an individual needs to use her resources: Big and mid-size plans long ago arranged for recordkeepers to provide a service of deciding hardship claims. (Governmental plans even longer ago required their service providers to decide unforeseeable-emergency claims.) If a review is anything more than checking that a form, whether paper or website, is filled-out and signed, that’s a cost that gets accounted for in how the service provider quotes fees. The participants (who bear the plan-administration expenses, no matter how a fiduciary pays or allocates them) are paying for being told whether one’s circumstances are worthy of using one’s own resources.

I'm surprised i didn't see a recommendation for ASC come up on this thread yet. So here I am. I will say that I've only had experience with FT William for 1099 production. But for valuation / compliance testing I was raised on ASC many years ago and am still using them to this day. I would say their customer service is a life-saver when something gets difficult with a plan. They have constant educational resources on their website (webcasts, system tutorials, news letters). We also use their web-based software for 5500 / government reporting which is equally fantastic. Lots of support from their service / consulting team and very FAST! Best part is they will communicate by email or PHONE to troubleshoot any issue you have. Some larger vendors stay stuck behind an email when trying to "help". Gets frustrating. But not ASC and their helpful team of consultants (who are all also pension professionals with administration backgrounds and credentials). Lastly, I have never encountered a problem getting a massive plan to calculate on ASC within only a minute or two. I am an ASC cheerleader forever! Thank you, ASC!

On both a 5500 and an SF, the opening wording to question 4 or 10 (and their a through i or n subsections) says, "During the plan year:" So I don't think you're properly answering the question if you obtain it after the year-end but still suggest it was covered (unless retroactive). And as for the "part of the year" scenario - I think it's reasonable to say that "the plan year" does not specify the entire plan year. Meaning, if you got your coverage on December 31, then the answer of "yes" is a true answer because during the year it was indeed covered. Heck, I'd suggest you get to leave "yes" as your answer if your policy expired on December 30. (Recall on the SF, you're asked if the plan had loans, even if the they're all paid down to zero by 12/31, so you still admit there were loans, even if it wasn't all year long.) As for the dollar amount, I'd use the largest amount of policy in effect during the year. Or if the plan just uses an inflation guard, I'd use the 10% BOY amount.