Leaderboard

I like both. The AI search isn't a huge selling point for me; I was kind of underwhelmed by the demo. - EOB is more technical and goes deeper into the weeds on most topics. ERISAPedia is more plain English explanation of technical topics. - I can get more out of EOB, but 90% of the time I can get what I need from ERISAPedia. - If it is going to be used by less experienced, less technical employees, ERISAPedia is probably better. Its easier to search and easier to understand. - If I could only have one, it would be the EOB. If I could only have one for my staff, it would be ERISAPedia. I hope that helps.

I agree with @RatherBeGolfing about the utility of each service. I use both services (including most of the ERISApedia eSources and their new AI Search feature). I also use Wolters Kluwer's Vital Law pension-related services. Let me preface my observations that I view each of these services as a tool to complete a task, and depending on the task, you need to have the right tools to complete the task accurately and efficiently. Wolters Kluwer has the most in-depth resources for current, historical and proposed laws, regulations, notices, memorandums, relevant case law... One of its particular strengths when working on plan corrections for past years is having ready access to what was in effect contemporaneously in each of those past years. Similarly to ERISApedia, WK provides access to several of their books on various topics written in "plain English". The TAG service is similar to ERISApedia's Ask the Author service. One plus to the TAG service is it notes when the question was asked and answered, and generally provides more detail supporting the answer. The EOB is the gold standard for researching a topic where knowing what, when and why about the topic is important. The EOB has accumulated information over the history of retirement plans which is informative but may not be relevant to what you are researching. A very big advantage to the EOB over other services is references to informal guidance gleaned from agency presentations at meetings/conferences with various industry groups, and from interactions between agencies and professional organizations. Navigating the EOB is a learned skill and is not intuitive. ERISApedia is very the most user friendly of the three services. Most of the time this is an advantage particularly when confirming what you think you know but are not completely confident about it. ERISApedia also is very helpful when faced with an unfamiliar topic and there is a need to get up to speed fairly quickly. Like Wolters Kluwer, you need to sign up for multiple eSources to get the most out of ERISApedia. While I like the Asked and Answered feature, the results often do not frame the Q&A in its time frame or regulatory context which can lead to assuming an answer that was correct in prior years remains in effect today. The ERISApedia AI Search is in its infancy and will grow in value as more people use the system. ERISApedia stresses that it is a productivity tool and the user needs to confirm the validity of results. It definitely saves time. One ancillary feature is the ability to ask the service to draft a memo, to draft an election form, or to draft an explanation. The final results almost always need editing, but the AI-generated content is a very big time saver. The cost of the AI service is peanuts and this feature is well worth the incremental cost. Again, I view each of these services as a tool to complete a task, and depending on the task, you need to have the right tools to complete the task accurately and efficiently. A firm needs to manage its operating expenses with a view towards what pays for itself both in terms of efficiency and in terms of doing things correctly. We all have had experiences where the cost of redoing or fixing something is orders of magnitude greater than the cost of getting things done correctly the first time.

I agree with buyer's counsel. Also, I agree on requiring a determination letter filing on the terminating plan. As buyer in a stock sale, it assumes all the obligations of the seller corporation. Presumably the plan is being terminated pre closing and the buyer is going to handle post-termination administration. Even if the DB plan was spun off and terminated, if there is an issue under that DB plan, there is a potential that liability could still fall back on the buyer if the IRS/PBGC thought that the spin off was a sone type of subterfuge to escape liability. Normally, in the case of a terminating DB plan, you would seek a letter and no distributions would occur until after the letter is received. I also agree that a QRP cannot be used if the plan terms simply state "any excess should be allocated among participants" without anything else. You conveniently left out language in IRS 7.12.1.17.1.2 (11-10-2022) @sobrienTPS states that provision from the manual correctly "a plan could provide a direct transfer to a qualified plan or choose to allocate the excess assets to participants (as IRC 415 allows) in the event the reversion language is absent or not in existence long enough to allow a reversion." The conditions of if the reversion is not allowed or not in place for 5 years modifies the allocation of excess asset to participants... the conditions do not modify the use of a QRP. I have always read this language to mean you either can (1) use a QRP or (2) allocate if you can't use a QRP. But youhave the perfect scenario to let the IRS decide. Amend the plan to permit the QRP, with the amendment laying out exactly how much of the excess assets will be transferred to the QRP, and how those amounts will be allocated in the QRP, CLEARLY indicating the effective date of the termination of the DB plan and the effective date of the change to the reversionary language. If the IRS blesses it, then all is well. If not, you are back where you are at now. If they don't permit the QRP, it should not be a problem because most plans would not permit distributions prior to the issuance of the IRS determination letter, and all that will be required is to work out is how to allocate the excess assets to the participants. If there is more than can be allocated, the IRS will be there to let you know what to do with the rest. Either way, as buyer's counsel, I would not be letting the seller walk off with any of the potential reversion. At most, we could escrow the amounts until resolved. And, yes, we always amend a plan for the QRP provisions (usually these provisions will contain language that is also going to be used in the QRP plan document) along with always requiring a letter on the termination of the plan. You should tell the seller/buyer, you are a TPA... not a lawyer. They can ask you your thoughts but no matter what you say, it should always be followed up with... but you should really ask your lawyer. As always, just my thoughts with absolutely no research...

You said, "reversions are not an option when handling the distribution of residual assets. Instead, the Plan says any excess should be allocated among participants". Assuming that is true, then I agree with the attorney and you can't use a QRP. A QRP is essentially a reversion to the employer, which your client's document does not permit. You can change this wording, but it can't be effective for 5 years. The excess assets need to be reallocated to the participants, and cannot be reverted to the employer. A QRP is an employer reversion since it essentially reduces the cash the employer would have contributed on future DC allocations.