Leaderboard

Assume the termination date is 12/31 and you have a similar situation straddling that date. How would you handle it? Typically the check date controls when pay is considered earned and to what year it applies. Your plan could be different so you have to read it and the termination amendment. But if it was my client, nothing paid after 10/31 would count.

It seems as if the Forms and SPD have created the administrative procedures for such items not specifically contained in the document, assuming there are no other written procedures concerning this, and the question is whether the fiduciary/plan administrator reasonably interpreted those procedures in processing the claim/form as valid given all the facts and circumstances, or acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner ignoring its own administrative procedures. This looks like a situation that could be headed toward litigation, if not there already.

Yeah, I would request the procedure documents to the extent the Administrator could get copies.

Are these material defects or more like a technicality that still should have caused the designation to be rejected? Did someone forget to dot an "i" or did they turn in a designation without signing it or getting it notarized?

If the document is ambiguous or doesn't have the information, generally it is the plan fiduciaries that have the power to interpret a document. Usually the administrative services agreements for TPAs and Recorkeepers have some direction to the service provider from the plan sponsor, to follow standard processes and procedures or some sort of manual. That manual or those process and procedure documents will then control. They are probably available online, they usually will specify what is "NIGO" - not in good order. Good Luck, unless you get all of the documents related this kind of thing is hard to parse.

The Answer is B, one year before the time of scheduled payment, unless Plan language is unduly restrictive. Were that not the case it would not be possible for separated employees to make later postponement elections, and I see that all the time with installment elections when each payment is deemed a separate payment. I am assuming that the initial election was for a separation from service payment or for the first to occur of the two, fixed date or separation. That plan language allowed for two different payment events, separation from service OR fixed date. Check the election he made. Which was it? Then double check the plan's postponement language. 0ne year before payment date is all you need. (Not legal advice, etc.,etc.)

Apologies. It looks like I misread your questions. Are you saying that (1) the fiduciary acted in disregard of provisions stated in a form and provisions stated in the SPD*, and (2) the provisions in the form and SPD were not inconsistent with core plan document adopted by the sponsor? Part of the analysis gets us into the question of what is a plan document. It still involves questions of interpretation and it still requires a reading of all of the relevant provisions in the plan and the administrative documents. I don't think this forum is conducive to that kind of review. *There is also a question relating to the required timing for revising administrative and disclosure documents to reflect changes in the law or the plan. The fiduciaries have to act in accordance with the effective new governing standard/provision before the documents are required to catch up to the changes.

And if top-heavy, they accrue a top-heavy minimum life annuity in the DB plan that you need to track.

Either bring them in the DC.....or increase their DB accrual up to the gateway equivalent since it's probably not high enough to start with in the first place? Maybe check if these people are short-service enough to run in a disaggregated set of tests for the otherwise excludable? (Trying to think how the DB got the easier eligibility to get into, so maybe they use something less than the 410a max.)

Thank you, Brian. This is a brand, new vision plan (never had one before) so we are not offering to current COBRA participants.

Do employers have to offer a new vision plan (effective 1/1/25) to all current COBRA participants or only to those who become COBRA participants following the implementation of this new plan offering?