Leaderboard

IMO, this is a scenario where the plan needs to hire legal counsel. It sounds like someone said that the plan terms provided for the default beneficiary to be the participant's issue (children) "per capita", rather than "per stirpes". (The comment about grandchildren not being ineligible to receive distributions is odd.) Why was this direction given? Assuming the plan did require distribution per stirpes, then the Plan Administrator erred in making the distribution of the entire balance to the son and it will have to make the granddaughter whole. The plan can likely attempt to collect the excess payment back from the son, but that may not be an easy process (i.e., the son may refuse) so the plan may need to review whether it wants (and the cost/benefit relationship makes sense) to make demands/file suit/etc. Keep in mind that the Plan Administrator is generally the employer. The Plan Administrators hires service providers, such as the "401k company," to perform functions, but the service providers generally avoid serving as a fiduciary and just take direction. The questions I'd ask are: Who is/are the proper beneficiary? And if it is not the son (only), how was the distribution made incorrectly in the first place? Most plan documents have clear language regarding default beneficiaries. Who gave the incorrect advice and who followed it? The answers to those questions will help to determine who should be responsible for fixing the issue.

Potentially. Again, I am going to recommend legal counsel. There are a number of issues here. But speaking generally, if the PA made an incorrect distribution, giving a beneficiary's money to the wrong party, then there is likely a fiduciary breach. Assuming there is a realistic belief that the PA could be liable for a breach, the PA can make the plan whole with a restorative contribution which can be used to pay the correct beneficiary. Separately, recovering the excess distribution from the other beneficiary can be pursued. This is not legal advice. The fact pattern here is interesting, but there is a lot of missing information that could reflect responsibility and/or liability by a number of parties for a number of reasons - or even that no one is due anything. To steal the line of a frequent poster here: free advice is worth what you pay for it. Unless this issue is over a trivial amount, I strongly recommend the plan consult with an ERISA attorney.

Just my two cents. I would first confirm if the distribution actually went to the incorrect beneficiaries; because the suggestion that a portion of the benefit goes to the son and a portion to the granddaughter sounds a little unusual. I would check the terms of the 401k plan document to confirm who the benes are in the absence of a bene designation. Is it the estate; or are there identified individuals to be treated as benes in the plan document (e.g., children, grandchildren, siblings, etc)? If the beneficiary truly is the estate (which is typical), you would acquire the estate documents from the estate administrator and, if the estate is still open, the amounts should have gone to the estate (if that was dictated by the terms of the plan document). It is possible that the estate is closed and the estate docs designated the son to get half and the granddaughter to get half. Before you go ahead and try to correct the distribution, I would first confirm who the correct beneficiaries are pursuant to the plan document and, if relevant, the estate documents.

What does the plan document say regarding what happens when the 436 restrictions are lifted?

Peter, there is at least one other category. There are a substantial number of actuaries who place themselves in the "pension actuary" category (usually including an Enrolled Actuary credential) that also work on health-related issues. Notably, "Other Post-Employment Benefits" (OPEB); ie, retiree benefits that most often include medical, dental, life. The percent of time spent on these issues varies widely: anywhere from 5% to 95%+.

The 2023 instructions to the Form 5500 page 3 includes the following definition: Pension Benefit Plan All pension benefit plans covered by ERISA must file an annual return/report except as provided in this section. The return/ report must be filed whether or not the plan is “tax-qualified,” benefits no longer accrue, contributions were not made this plan year, or contributions are no longer made. Pension benefit plans required to file include both defined benefit plans and defined contribution plans. The following are among the pension benefit plans for which a return/report must be filed. 1. Profit-sharing plans, stock bonus plans, money purchase plans, 401(k) plans, etc. ... For purposes of the Form 5500, the term pension is used to distinguish a retirement plan from a welfare benefit plan.

By what authority is the administrator increasing the amount that the order says to pay? The plan‘s written procedures should require in situations where the alternate payee is not the spouse or former spouse specificity in the amount that is to be withheld and how it relates to the amount awarded to the alternate payee. An order that fails to state the amounts, including withholding, should fail to qualify.

For sure. Our organization employs pension-only actuaries, healthcare only actuaries, and XLOS (cross line of service) actuaries who deal with both.

I would think most pension actuaries don't have their fingers as much in the DC pies, simply because most DC admin work typically can be done by someone cheaper to the TPA business owner. Aside from non-discrimination on combos and 404a7 impacts, the actuaries I've worked with never touched any DC plans, and now that I'm doing actuarial work there's a corresponding "DC person" to handle their half.

I can't offer any quantitative insights, and I'll refrain from anecdotal observations or conjecture. However, I'll note that there are at least 3 distinct definitions of "actuary" when it comes to retirement, and which of these you mean might affect your analysis: Enrolled actuaries Individuals with a credential from any of the five U.S.-based actuarial organizations Individuals working in an actuarial capacity, regardless of whether they have obtained any credentials For example, federal law only recognizes definition 1 with respect to ERISA and the tax code, and only those actuaries may certify a plan's actuarial report, its funded status, its PBGC variable-rate premium, or its sufficiency for a standard termination. However state law might expand that to include actuaries under definition 2 for some purposes. And some people under definition 3 might have a job title of Actuary.

Santo Gold, CuseFan is totally right re the above, and it may be even simpler. Is the "top assistant['s]" $250k on a W-2 from the Dr. or does the cash go to the company she owns before it's paid to her? If her company is not getting paid, it presumably is not providing any services to the Dr.

I would save all documentation, and then do a typical missing participant search. The plan/plan sponsor/plan administrator hopefully has an administrative procedure for such and if not, now would also be a good time to develop one.