Leaderboard

Solo 401(k) is a marketing term and not a real thing. Probably the only difference is that some mutual fund/brokerage providers will create a “solo” document that severely restricts the operation of the plan. They also aren’t always good at ensuring the plan document satisfies all the amendment and restatement rules. Whatever it’s called, you have to follow the eligibility, discrimination, and filing rules. Also, you have to follow the long term part time rules. I highly recommend you find a TPA to handle the compliance. It will cost you less to have it done right than it will to have someone fix it later.

I'll rob from Paul here to pay Peter. Paul makes an important point in emphasizing negative consent, which from a plan participant's perspective looks very different from Peter's perspective of advising a plan sponsor. In evaluating a course of action for my own clients, I always put on opposing counsel's hat to determine what their responsive legal argument might be before I make my own argument. For example, if a plan participant is going sue a plan and its fiduciaries, that participant's counsel will home in on actions taken that are arguably not in the best interests of participants, which could be shown by introducing the kinds of evidence you list in your third post, Peter. In particular, negative consent-basis actions would appear to a litigant to be a ripe target for close scrutiny, especially if an end result has demonstrably detrimental effect on participants. So yes, from a legal perspective, I would think a prudent plan fiduciary has a responsibility to consider those possible outcomes before instituting a practice that has many known unknowns and the result of which have the potential for damaging participants. If a plan participant sues, be prepared in discovery to show plan fiduciaries considered potential outcomes. Even with lots of plan policy communications to participants, jurists will consider whether the average plan participant is likely to understand them.

Paul I, thank you for suggesting some other factors. Among many points a fiduciary might consider, one I find at least question-raising is that neither the auto-portability provider nor the receiving plan’s recordkeeper seems obligated to evaluate whether the receiving plan is prudently, or even lawfully, administered. What if, under a next employer’s plan, the expenses borne by a plan account are worse than those charged to a default IRA? What if none of a new employer’s people handling the plan’s assets is covered by fidelity-bond insurance, one of them steals the new participant’s account, and the employer is judgment-proof? It’s hard enough to decide defaults for the plan a fiduciary manages. But how does a fiduciary prudently say yes to defaults about an unknown plan that’s beyond the former employer’s control? Yet, I also can imagine some situations under which not getting auto-portability default contributions might weaken a plan for some of its participants. I wonder whether a plan’s fiduciary has a responsibility to consider that. And there are impartiality conflicts: Even within one plan, auto-portability could help some participants, and could harm some others. I guess the analysis might wait until there’s a live candidate with real facts to consider. Or, maybe Congress will legislate a nonliability provision, or even a command.

Filing Authorization For the 2024 Form 5500 Name of Plan: EIN / PN: Plan Year Ending: December 31, 2024 PART I Authorization of Practitioner to Electronically Sign and File I hereby authorize XXXXXX to electronically sign and file the above-named return/report through EFAST2. I understand that in granting this authority: • I must manually sign and date page 1 of the Form 5500 and provide a scanned copy of that signature page to XXXXXXX before the electronic filing can be initiated; • XXXXXXX will retain a copy of this written authorization in its records; • XXXXXXX will notify the individual(s) signing below as plan administrator/employer about any inquiries and information it receives from EFAST2, DOL, IRS, or PBGC regarding this annual return/report; and • A copy of my signature, as it appears on page 1 of the Form 5500, will be included with the return/report posted by the Department of Labor on the Internet for public disclosure. • XXXXXXX shall not be deemed an administrator or other fiduciary with respect to any Plan solely on account of the services performed under this authorization. This authorization is applicable only to the filing for the above-named Plan and applies only for Plan year end stated above. Plan Administrator: ___________________________ Date: ____________ PART II Acknowledgement of Receipt of Authorization On behalf of XXXXXXXX I hereby certify that the firm will use the authority granted only for the express purposes described above; that the firm will not disclose confidential information to any parties other than the DOL, as required for EFAST filing; and that the firm will take reasonable steps to assure that confidential information provided by the Plan Administrator or Plan Sponsor is protected from unauthorized disclosure. For XXXXXXXXXX: ________________­________Date: ____________ The designated service provider must retain this authorization.

Mandamus is not available to direct a private party to a legal proceeding (e.g. the two individuals in a divorce) to take action. Mandamus is for directing a lower court, a public official, or a public administrative entity to perform its prescribed duty. I doubt that mandamus is appropriate to force a private employer plan to determine whether or not a domestic relations order is a qualified domestic relations order. Mandamus is a pretty cool word, though. It also has a very distinguished role in United States jurisprudence: Marbury v. Madison.