Leaderboard

ARA requests immediate administrative relief in the form of of delay of application and enforcement of LTPTE rules... https://www.napa-net.org/news-info/daily-news/american-retirement-association-asks-irs-more-time-ltpte-rule https://www.napa-net.org/sites/napa-net.org/files/ARA letter_relief re LTPTE Rules_112923.pdf

Peter, I would think that works for the right employer, but for many would fail 410(B) testing.

BG5150, I have not looked into this, but I would point out that while ERISA preempts most state laws that relate to employee benefit plans, it does not preempt other Federal laws. The basis for most of the Supreme Court's decisions over the last decade or so ago that have expanded individuals' rights to the free exercise of their religion (e.g., an employer's not being able to fire an employee for wearing particular clothing or facial hair at work, or refusing to work on certain holy days) is not the First Amendment's antiestablishment clause, but the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act which, per Wikipedia, applies "to all Federal law, and the implementation of that law, whether statutory or otherwise", including any Federal statutory law adopted after the RFRA's date of signing "unless such law explicitly excludes such application." Therefore, it seems possible that a participant in an ERISA-covered plan has a right to have the plan's rules be harmonized with his/her/their religious beliefs.

Even if the Internal Revenue Service publishes the nonenforcement guidance American Retirement Association seeks, that would not preclude a participant, including a should-be participant, from enforcing ERISA § 202(c) and ERISA § 203(b)(4). Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978 transfers to the Treasury department powers to interpret ERISA sections 202 and 203. But that does not undo a participant’s ERISA § 502(a) civil-enforcement opportunities. Even if the IRS might not pursue failures of conditions for tax-qualified treatment, plans’ administrators and their advisers should continue their interpretations of what ERISA’s title I commands.

Yes, 100x projected monthly benefit is max as a CB Plan is a type of DB Plan. Purchase of Life Insurance must follow terms of the Plan Document and must be done in a non-discriminatory manner.

Electronic delivery question aside, it's my understanding that a plan termination notice for a non-pension plan is not required. That being said, you'd want to let active participants know that deferrals/contributions to the plan will cease, as a courtesy. Is that not correct?

Try Lee Swerdlin at FuturePlan (Lee.Swerdlin@futureplan.com). I am the SME for 403(b) work at FuturePlan and all our 457(b) work goes to Lee. Patricia Neal Jensen, JD SME NonProfit Plans FuturePlan, an Ascensus Company

A minor nit here - I think there could be a (theoretical) scenario where an employer makes an amendment to a pre-approved document that was sponsored by firm X, using pre-approved language, but if X no longer sponsors the document, the document could be disqualified. The scenario is that there is something wrong with the document that was missed in the approval process. If it is not sponsored by firm X, then you can no longer rely on the opinion letter. (Actually this applies whether it is amended or not, which is the main point...once it is no longer sponsored, you technically have an individually designed plan without a favorable determination letter.) It's probably going to take about as long to prepare the amendment as it would to restate the plan, at least in our world. If you (TPApril) are reluctant to restate it because the fees are higher and you don't want to have to charge for something that is "unnecessary," that is a fee schedule issue. I was pretty hung up on this for years but then realized that the distinction between "amendment" and "restatement" was blurry, at least as far as time involved. The collective time spent debating this is probably more than the time it would take to restate it. Not complaining; just pointing out that sometimes we get hung up on things when we just need to act and move on.

"Student" implies part-time, a service condition. "Trainee" implies a definitive "end" to the course of study (same as "seasonal"), and is a service condition. Playing devil's advocate here....

A few years ago I had quite a time finding an administrator for a very small nonprofit 457(b). Finally found a very knowledgeable person who was on her own out on the West Coast and someone with Ascensus. Both seemed competent and client went with Ascensus because was local (at least that's my recollection) and less expensive.

I'll add 2 or 3 cents here. : ) First, you ask if the plan can be amended, but you don't specify who is adopting the amendment - the employer or your firm on the employer's behalf (which sponsors of a pre-approved plan have the authority to do). Your firm can't adopt the amendment on the employer's behalf because they aren't on your plan. That may be an issue when it's time for the next interim amendments and may be reason enough to restatement onto your pre-approved plan prior to the next restatement cycle. My guess is that in this case it's the employer that will be adopting the amendment. There's nothing that can stop the employer from doing so. That then raises the question as to whether the plan is still a pre-approved plan. If the amendment isn't deviating from the pre-approved language, then I'd say they have reliance. The IRS doesn't care who does the amendment - it's only a matter of whether you have deviated from the pre-approved language. If they are doing something that's allowed in pre-approved plans but not offered in this specific pre-approved plan then you're covered because at the next restatement you can get retroactive reliance (it may require submitting for a DL if it's still not offered in the pre-approved plan you use). If it's a provision that can't be in a pre-approved plan, then you'd treat the plan as individually designed and you can submit if the plan never received a prior DL.

I was struggling with that as well. Found the following in the ERISA outline book: 2.b.2) No delay rights for later distributions. Once the participant reaches normal retirement age (or age 62, if later), the plan is permitted to require that distribution be taken. In that case, only the form of payment might be left to the participant's election. The plan may permit the participant to postpone distribution beyond normal retirement age (or age 62, if later), subject to the minimum distribution requirements of IRC §401(a)(9) (discussed in Section VII of this chapter). Where distribution can no longer be delayed, a written notice is still required, but the notice would explain only the payment options available to the participant, as discussed in 2.a. above, and the direct rollover option, as discussed in 2.c. below. So take actives out of the equation. Is the right to defer past NRA protected for inactive participants? Assume John terminates at age 40 and (at the time) has the opportunity to defer his benefit past NRA (with an actuarial increase). Can the plan be amended when John is 45 to force him to take his benefit at NRA?