Leaderboard

First, any claim for benefits made by anyone other than the known participant should be scrutinized and require sufficient documentation to establish to the Plan Administrator's satisfaction that such person is entitled to a benefit. If benefits have been claimed under misrepresentation then the PA/fiduciary should determine if any benefits have been paid in error and if so, whether to attempt to recoup. It is also noteworthy that the time limitations for doing so imposed by SECURE are specifically exempted in cases of fraud/misrepresentation. Facts and circumstances, including amounts in question and funded status of the plan, should be considered as well.

The first steps your husband should take is to ask the plan administrator for information about taking a distribution from the plan. The plan administrator's contact information including the phone number appears on page 20. The name of the company that does the plan accounting also appears on that page. I expect either contact will be able to answer your questions and provide detailed instructions on how your husband can request any benefits due to him. Most plan administrators are very helpful. If, for any reason this is not the case, then your husband can follow the steps for filing a claim. The procedures for filing a claim begin on page 15. May everything work as it should and your husband timely receives the benefits due to him under the terms of the plan provisions.

See my comments in all bold type. So most, if not all, plan administrators will ask a designated "Primary Beneficiary" (or anyone requesting a payout of a "benefit") to complete a "Benefit Claim Form". What is a "designated beneficiary? A spouse? A former spouse? A child? The format I am familiar with typically starts at the top by explaining the nature of the benefit including amounts and different options for payout(if applicable) from which the "beneficiary" may choose. What type of defined benefit plan? Is it under ERISA? Then what follows are a series of "declarations"; pre-printed on the "claim form" that the "beneficiary" confirms by checking a box next to each individual phrase/declaration. Finally, at the bottom of the claim form there is a signature and date line where the "beneficiary" (as I'm referring to them) is to sign and date the claim form. In print either directly above or below the signature line is language to the effect of : "By signing this form you confirm, under penalties of perjury the accuracy/correctness of your responses to the statements above". Now, say the person filling out the form "affirms" an obviously false statement, for example that they were still married to the deceased plan participant at the time of their death, when, in fact, they are divorced from the deceased. Are you setting forth a hypothetical or is that actually what happened your case. . Upon learning of the falsehood, which, potentionally, could affect a payout (or might not ala' Egelhof v. Egelhof) could the Plan Administrator deny/revoke/attempt to recover any "payout" or , in this particular instance, might the administrator, determine based on established caselaw such as Egelhof v. Egelhof for example, and say "No harm no foul" or would they be obligated to perform further due diligence and/or look to some outside legal authority, such as the courts, to make any final determination ? Were the Participant and the former spouse married at the time the Participant retired and elected a QJSA as required by law (unless waived by the former spouse). That election survived the divorce and the alleged misstatement is meaningless. If the Participant agreed, or the Court in the Judgment of Divorce ordered, that the former spouse be the Alternate Payee of the Participant survivor annuity benefits, and a QDRO was issued by the Court and approved by the Plan, then the alleged misstatement is meaningless. If the Participant agreed, or the Court in the Judgment of Divorce ordered, that the former spouse be the Alternate Payee of the Participant survivor annuity benefits, and no QDRO was ever issued, then Pension Protection Act of 2006 would permit a posthumous QDRO, and the alleged misstatement is meaningless. If the QDRO or the JAD or the Plan provides that upon the death of the Participant the Alternate Payee is to be treated as the beneficiary and as the surviving spouse of the Participant, then the alleged misstatement is meaningless. Egelhoff may or may not apply. The language of the Plan Documents may or may not apply. DSG

See 1.409A-2(a)(8), which deals with the deferral election timing of performance-based compensation, particularly the second half of the paragraph about making a deferral election once the compensation is "reasonably ascertainable." I think that's the piece you're looking for. The uncertainty of meeting the performance goal when the criteria are set is dealt with in 1.409A-1(e)(1), which defines performance-based compensation.

I would like to underscore Peter Gulia's comments. Employers and plan fiduciaries* should not be giving any advice about the law that is not specifically required by applicable law. For example, a plan is required to provide an explanation of rollover rules. A plan should not go beyond the mandate even with respect to related aspects of the rollovers, and certainly not with respect to other tax matters. *Unless the fiduciary is professional and engaged expressly to provide the advice. Even then, the appointing fiduciary would have to be prudent in the engagement, including determining if the fiduciary were competent to provide the service/advice.

An employer or a plan's administrator might prefer not to provide guidance on this question. Unless one has extraordinary expertise, an answer in either direction has a potential to harm one or more of an individual’s interests. Beyond knowing the law, an adviser would need to know everything about the individual’s other and surrounding circumstances. Under the part 416 rules of the Supplemental Security Income for the Aged, Blind, and Disabled program, the subpart L rules on “Resources and Exclusions” are at 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.1201 to 416.1266. These rules begin at 20 C.F.R. § 416.1201(a) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/part-416/section-416.1201#p-416.1201(a). Those rules are only a few of many that could relate to the SSI beneficiary’s situation. And one would research too the rulings and other nonrule guidance. And the guidance the Social Security Administration provides for SSA’s employees. For example: https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0501120210. One also might consider that some SSI provisions might allow SSA to not count some elements of a beneficiary’s income or resources. In my experience, it’s impractical to advise an SSI beneficiary unless one volunteers an uncompensated engagement and can afford to put in substantial time and attention. This is not advice to anyone.

Maybe you could put a little more flesh on that skeleton?

I'd also add that you may want to look closely at the fiduciary self-dealing PTs (in addition to the extension of credit). If the DB plan is making a loan to Bob so that Bob can invest the borrowed proceeds into something Joe otherwise couldn't afford, I think you have a problem. For example, Joe wants to buy a piece of real estate for $500,000. He has $400,000. Bob agrees to borrow the last $100,000 from the DB plan to co-invest with Joe, allowing Joe to buy the property. Even if the loan is not directly prohibited under 4975(c)(1)(B), because Bob is not a disqualified person, it could still be fiduciary self-dealing on Joe's part under 4975(c)(1)(E).

Generally, a loan from a DB plan treated as an investment of trust assets and is subject to all of the due diligence needed to assure that the loan is an appropriate investment to be held by a qualified plan. Company A fiduciaries would bear the responsibility of making an assessment that this is an arms-length transaction unaffected by Bob's status as a co-owner of business B, that the loan itself is a sound investment. It doesn't sound like Bob is a participant in the DB, so one would expect that a loan to Bob would be backed by sufficient collateral to cover the loan in the event of default. Unlike a participant loan from a defined contribution plan, there is no vested account balance available to support the loan. If Bob has the collateral to back up loan, it begs the question why the Bob cannot get a loan from sources unrelated to the plan. A loan from an unrelated source would keep the DB plan cleanly out of equation. To add a twist to a proverbial saying, neither lender borrower be; for loan oft loses both itself and co-owner.

What are the implications? Would you have longer term PT <1000 hours become eligible due to elapsed time? What are the requirements for a PS contribution? If there are people technically in, but who do not get a PS because they worked <1000 hours, and if the plan is not top heavy and can pass coverage (these could be otherwise excludable, so likely OK there), then might this be a non-event from an administrative perspective that can be fixed with a prospective amendment with the intended language? This could also, if properly worded, "kick out" those who never worked 1000 hours. If this doesn't work then I agree it's audit CAP which likely also requires some contributions for those unintended entrants.