Leaderboard

Just to expand and clarify, in an individual account plan, where a participant elects to purchase insurance, the money comes from that participant's account. The plan is named as owner and beneficiary. (To name anyone else as owner, say, the participant, would effectively be a transfer of assets, i.e. a distribution, which would be wrong.) If and when the participant dies, the plan collects the money as beneficiary and credits the participant's account accordingly. The proceeds then flow through the plan to the participant's plan beneficiary.

yeah, they let you now.....well, depending on what you're doing! (hence my reference to 4% as the safe harbor nonelective, rather than 3%)

Iffy's not the word. But why not adopt a 4% SH at this point for last year?

An IRA is a non-probate asset that does not generally get settled through a will. The IRA designation forms and agreement will determine the beneficiary. If there is no designated beneficiary, then you look to the IRA agreement to determine the beneficiary. Each IRA custodian has its own agreement and each will have their own provision to determine who inherits the IRA when there is no beneficiary named on the form, when there is no form at all, or when the form is defective. Sometimes it will be clean and simple with the spouse as the default beneficiary, then the children, if there is no surviving spouse. But, here, based what the bank is saying, your IRA agreement may provide that upon the death of the account owner with no designated beneficiary, the proceeds will default to the estate of the account owner. You should confirm that this is correct by asking the IRA custodian for a copy of the IRA agreement and for them to point you to the portion of the IRA agreement that provides the default beneficiary language (or as fmsinc states, see "what does your Order of Precedence say"), In these instances, we have seen where IRA custodians will not permit an estate to assign or transfer the IRA out of the estate to a properly titled inherited IRA for estate beneficiaries, although the IRS permits it, and will instead require that the entire IRA balance be paid to the estate. Regrettably, unless the IRA agreement states otherwise, this appears to be within the IRA custodian's powers. If this is done, it will be a taxable distribution(s) that cannot be undone. (Also, depending on the size of the estate there may be estate taxes.) If the beneficiary is the estate, the balance would be required to be paid out to the estate within 5 years.

Is it possible that the DOL could hire the old TPA to do clean up work that would be easier for them to farm out? Does this happen and does anyone know how well DOL pays?

What is notable about this situation is the relative informal approach the DOL is taking. It seems as if they are going out of their way to avoid opening an investigation of the plan. Here is a well-done article the provides an in-depth description of what can be involved in an investigation: https://www.groom.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Guide-to-Dealing-with-Department-of-Labor-Investigations-of-Retirement-Plans.pdf Regarding the circumstances in this posting, the guide clearly states on the first page: "The DOL does not have the authority to compel the plan or any service provider to create materials or analyze issues on the DOL’s behalf." The guide also notes that: "The DOL has broad authority under the statute to: Require the submission of reports, books, and records of the plan. Enter places to inspect books and records. Question persons deemed necessary to determine the facts relative to an investigation." Given this authority, it begs the question in this case why, after all other attempts to contact the plan fiduciaries, hasn't the DOL sent an agent to the plan sponsor's (or any other fiduciary's) last known physical address? They DOL loves to harp about finding missing participants. They may wish, in this case, to try to find a plan sponsor that is MIA,

I'll take a slightly different approach. DOL can't force you to work on a plan you are no longer engaged to work on. DOL can ask you questions about a prior client and the work you did for them (I'm assuming there is no attorney-client privilege here). It sounds like they are trying to gather as much information as possible to be able to assist the participants in some way. I would meet with them and be as helpful as possible without agreeing to do any additional work. It also wont hurt to contact your friendly neighborhood ERISA attorney.

We are no longer a service provider to the plan and unable to assist you with the information you are requesting as we have no access to that data and no contractual agreement with that Plan or Sponsor. Please contact the ERISA Plan Administrator and/or Plan Trustee. Our last records which we have previously provided to you indicate they are X and Y. The last known address and phone in our records is _______ and _________. We wish you luck in enforcing the right of the participants with the legally responsible parties but are unable to offer any further assistance. Just repeat that ever time they call.

What youngbenefitslawyer seeks is the § 414(v)(7) amount for 2025 wages that set whether 2026’s age-based catch-up deferrals must be Roth contributions. We presume that adjustment won’t be IRS-announced until next October’s or early November’s notice. (Some BenefitsLink mavens form estimates.) A retirement plan I advise communicates the plan’s § 414(v)(7) provision to employees with a yearly salary more than $120,000. The idea is to allow some room for changes that might put an employee’s § 3121(a) wages over the applicable § 414(v)(7) amount.