Leaderboard

Have worked with a plan which was under audit by the IRS. They applied the methodology articulated by WCC above. No mercy for large plan filers!

I suggest checking the plan's HIPAA Notice of Privacy Practices. It should address your options in this area. More generally, the HIPAA rules do permit the plan to send EOBs to the employee for all covered dependents. However, there are rules that allow you to request delivery at a different address if you feel the disclosure of information to the employee could endanger you. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2000-12-28/pdf/00-32678.pdf Comment: Certain commenters explained that third party administrators usually communicate with employees through Explanation of Benefit (EOB) reports on behalf of their dependents (including those who might not be minor children). Thus, the employee might be apprised of the medical encounters of his or her dependents but not of medical diagnoses unless there is an over-riding reason, such as a child suspected of drug abuse due to multiple prescriptions. The commenters urged that the current claim processing procedures be allowed to continue. Response: We agree. We interpret the definition of payment and, in particular the term ‘‘claims management,’’ to include such disclosures of protected health information. ... For example, if an individual requests that a health plan send explanations of benefits about particular services to the individual’s work rather than home address because the individual is concerned that a member of the individual’s household (e.g., the named insured) might read the explanation of benefits and become abusive towards the individual, the health plan must accommodate the request.

I am not thinking about what level of assistance the government provides and how that relates to whether a place is a disaster area for a disaster-recovery loan or distribution. Rather, I wonder whether a plan’s administrator may rely on a claim’s statement that the claimant is a qualified individual. Or, must the claims-processing look at the participant’s address and screen out for further review a claim of a participant who seems to live nowhere near any of the recent disaster areas? Many plans have so automated claims procedures that a claim not processed wholly electronically is a serious disruption. A process that might require a human to read a claim is a pain-in-the-assets.

I think a reasonable interpretation is that any level of assistance in a major disaster area will qualify (absent further guidance). I'm comfortable defending that interpretation should they come out with further guidance that limits it.

Lots of answers in this thread.

No

While recognizing your aim of not putting too much information on a public website, it might help if you can, without risking privacy, mention: Is the retirement plan buying? Is the retirement plan selling? Is the company buying? Is the company selling? Is the buyer not a party-in-interest regarding the retirement plan? Is the seller not a party-in-interest regarding the retirement plan? Is the real property employer real property? Is the search for a lawyer to advise the buyer? Or a lawyer to advise the seller? Or a lawyer to advise the plan’s fiduciary, even if the plan is neither the buyer nor the seller? Which expertise does the advisee seek? Planning for ERISA-prudent decision-making? Or experience in real-property transactions? Or a firm with lawyers in both practices?

As @RatherBeGolfing noted, this topic came up in a few of the presentations at ASPPA National. The consensus response was to apply the plan's eligibility rules and if an employee or LTPTE is eligible to make deferrals on 1/1/2025, then they should be subject to auto-enrollment. The topic of whether all eligible employees should be auto-enrolled or only newly eligible employees could be auto-enrolled often was paired the LTPTE question. The consensus response was, absent explicit guidance, to at least follow the plan rules (or permissible plan rules) where the plan would honor existing affirmative elections that differ from the auto-enrollment minimum, but applying auto-enrollment all eligible employees on 1/1/2025 was an administrative fail-safe approach. It was acknowledged that we are a little more than a month away from the deadline to send to participants annual notices for the 2025 plan year, and this could be an administrative challenge for some plans.

I agree with all the prior comments and wholeheartedly agree with just - the requirement is to segregate from employer assets (i.e., deposit into a plan account) but amounts need not be invested/allocated within that time frame. Leaving them univested for a prolonged time may have other fiduciary concerns, but not late deposits.

The auditors we work with look at every period on a spreadsheet to determine the number of days it took for each withholding to be deposited. If they determine the company can reasonably make the deposit within say 3 days, then that is the standard for that company. No, nor should they.

Because I like this answer, I'm going to assume it is 100% correct.

I just had a such a good idea. The IRS should provide guidance!! Can someone please call them and make this suggestion? Thanks in advance!!