Leaderboard

Obviously, if there's something due to an error WE made, we wouldn't bill! Other than that, yes, we are billing for our time, although sometimes you have to exercise some judgment depending on the client, and we can't always bill for all of our time. But we aren't giving away as much as we used to. Fixed typo.

Are there any local TDA (now Schwab) offices in your area? In recent years, we came across an advisor in a local TDA office and working with him has made our life much easier when we need things done (i.e. statement copies, distributions, etc.).

I am with Effen. Adding a few points: 1)In-Service can be made available at 59.5 (rather than only at NRA) which requires the proper language in the document. 2)I also think of in-service as a distribution of a full accrued benefit rather than some random amount. Thus if a participant recived a full distribution at January 1, 2023 of his benefit accrued as of December 31, 2022, then there is nothing to be distributed until January 1, 2024 since he receives an additional accual only on December 31, 2023. Is it too simplistic? 3) Those distributions require some actuarial gymnastics if the design is at 415 level, got to be careful with proper capturing the offset for val purposes

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that any distribution from the plan must meet a defined form of payment. This would be some sort of lifetime annuity or a lump sum equal to the present value of the accrued benefit (or account balance if cash balance plan). An in-service distribution just means that a participant who has attained normal retirement age (NRA) doesn't need to separated from service in order to qualify for a distribution. The distribution paid still needs to satisfy one of the optional forms of payment stated in the plan document. IOW, I don't think a DB plan can just pay some random amount requested by a participant. If the participant attained NRA and wanted a LS distribution, the plan can pay it (assuming no restrictions apply). If the plan provisions allow that individual to earn additional benefits after the distribution, then they could be paid those as well once they have been earned. I don't really see anything wrong with taking a lump sum equal to the full accrued benefit at the beginning of a year, then another distribution later in the year if they have earned an additional accrual, but I think most documents restrict the recalculation to once a year. I don't think the actual funding of plan is relevant, other than if it impacts benefit restrictions.

My experience of almost 40 years is that the check date is most often used. Otherwise, the administrative work is a mess.