Leaderboard

Personally, I am of the opinion that those records should be kept electronically and in perpetuity, if not by the TPA/RK/Trustee/Custodian then certainly by the plan sponsor with the assistance from one of the aforementioned entities. Doesn't need to be extensive, just needs to sufficiently prove someone has been paid out. Why? SSA sends me a letter saying my employer's plan from 35 years ago MAY owe me a benefit. Not remembering they paid me back then and instead of rolling it over I went to the casino and lost it, I have no record, so I make a claim on that plan. I don't accept their answer of we don't have you in our records any more so you must have been paid out, so I go screaming "I want my two dollars!" (bonus points for the movie reference) and threaten to talk to my lawyer, the DOL, the IRS because I've seen everything worthwhile on Netflix and have nothing better to do now. This sends the Plan Administrator scrambling, calling around to past and present service advisors, muttering "I don't have time for this" and "I'm getting too old for this sh1t" (yes, another movie reference) before caving like a Democratic senator and concluding it's easier to pay me my $2. The moral here is (1) someone should retain these records in perpetuity, logically the plan sponsor, and (2) responsible party(ies) need to be diligent in reporting deletions on Form 8955-SSA. Then the too often occurring scenario from above gets avoided.

Notice 2025-67 just released, with the official retirement plan limits for 2026.

Is everyone in their own group for profit sharing? That would be the typical method of accomplishing this.

You wouldn't pass the reasonable classification portion of the eligibility test (i.e., the safe harbor percentage or unsafe harbor w/ facts/circumstances) without any NHCEs. That would cause the HCEs (everyone in this case) to lose the Section 125 safe harbor from constructive receipt (i.e., be taxed on their contributions). Prop. Treas. Reg. §1.125-7(b): (b) Nondiscrimination as to eligibility. (1) In general. A cafeteria plan must not discriminate in favor of highly compensated individuals as to eligibility to participate for that plan year. A cafeteria plan does not discriminate in favor of highly compensated individuals if the plan benefits a group of employees who qualify under a reasonable classification established by the employer, as defined in §1.410(b)-4(b), and the group of employees included in the classification satisfies the safe harbor percentage test or the unsafe harbor percentage component of the facts and circumstances test in §1.410(b)-4(c). (In applying the §1.410(b)-4 test, substitute highly compensated individual for highly compensated employee and substitute nonhighly compensated individual for nonhighly compensated employee). Prop. Treas. Reg. §1.125-7(m): (2) Discriminatory cafeteria plan. A highly compensated participant or key employee participating in a discriminatory cafeteria plan must include in gross income (in the participant's taxable year within which ends the plan year with respect to which an election was or could have been made) the value of the taxable benefit with the greatest value that the employee could have elected to receive, even if the employee elects to receive only the nontaxable benefits offered.

If everyone is $160k+ you would want to use the top-paid group (top 20%) election for the cafeteria plan, which I'm assuming they are already doing for the 401(k) (unless it is safe harbor). Then you would have NHCEs and therefore likely no issues. Prop. Treas. Reg. §1.125-7(a)(9): (9) Highly compensated. The term highly compensated means any individual or participant who for the preceding plan year (or the current plan year in the case of the first year of employment) had compensation from the employer in excess of the compensation amount specified in section 414(q)(1)(B), and, if elected by the employer, was also in the top-paid group of employees (determined by reference to section 414(q)(3)) for such preceding plan year (or for the current plan year in the case of the first year of employment). Treas. Reg. §1.414(q)-1, Q/A-9(b)(2)(iii): (iii) Method of election. The elections in this paragraph (b)(2) must be provided for in all plans of the employer and must be uniform and consistent with respect to all situations in which the section 414(q) definition is applicable to the employer. Thus, with respect to all plan years beginning in the same calendar year, the employer must apply the test uniformly for purposes of determining its top-paid group with respect to all its qualified plans and employee benefit plans. If either election is changed during the determination year, no recalculation of the look-back year based on the new election is required, provided the change in election does not result in discrimination in operation.

Getting stiffed for providing professional services in good faith almost always ends with a feeling of regret including what you shoulda, woulda, coulda have done differently to have avoided the situation. Your question in particular asks what would be ethical ways to proceed. As an EA, you are subject to the Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries and its Standards of performance of actuarial services which includes guidance on what is considered "records of the client". You also should be aware of the ethical standards of any professional organization to which you belong such as ASEA, SOA, ASPPA, AAA... Generally, while there are differences between each organization's code of ethics, if you delivered work product prior to receiving payment for those services, you cannot withdraw or invalidate a client's reliance on that work product. Generally you do have a right, absent any formal contractual obligation, not to perform future services. You appear to have a direct relationship with the plan sponsors since you have filing authorizations and also because you personally sign the Schedule SB. If ultimately you decide not to perform future services for the client, you should notify them in time for them to find another actuary, but you may find in some of the applicable codes of ethics that you should not disclose the reason is the TPA did not pay your fees. If this is the case, consider offering to continue working directly with the client as a change in your business model. Keep in mind that it is the TPA that is not paying for your services, but it is the plan sponsors who are using and relying on your services. The ways to proceed you listed have an element of vengeance or punishment which commonly is driven more by emotion, and it is the plan sponsors (not the TPA) who would suffer by attempts to remove the SB. Temper the emotion, seek legal counsel about how to proceed about getting paid for services delivered, and get some guidance on the cost of exploring legal paths forward in terms your time and expense against the known cost of writing off uncollected fees. Do take some time to implement, maintain and follow the terms service agreements and engagement letters with the TPAs and clients.

https://pbinfo.com/locate-missing-participants/ This is one that we use.

If the plan (including loan policy or procedure made under the plan) imposes no restriction or condition beyond those needed to meet tax law: Internal Revenue Code § 72(p)(2)(B)(ii): “Clause (i) [limiting a loan’s term to five years] shall not apply to any loan used to acquire any dwelling unit which within a reasonable time is to be used (determined at the time the loan is made) as the principal residence of the participant.” Many plans’ administrators’ process claims for a participant loan accepting the claimant’s statements, made under penalties of perjury, on a paper or electronic claim form. A claim form often had been designed to paraphrase text from the statute, regulations, or both. This is not advice to anyone.

Thank you for the pop-culture reference to Better Off Dead.

1. Why do you want to do this? 2. Are you thinking you can do a discretionary match only for the HCEs?

At this point, I agree, why not do individual PS groups and just give a 3% PS to the HCEs they want. If vesting is wanted, make the PS 100%. This would even give some flexibility to do 0-9% for any HCE provided you can pass cross-testing.

Well this is how I see it: (E) sets the beginning number alone. The beginning number alone is 150% of the 2024 catch-up limit. After 2024, the reference to 2024 is moot. Why? Because (C)(i) says the amount in paragraph (E) is adjusted for inflation. I actually don't where the other view would come from?

Yikes drakecohen. First, I agree with previous responses: 1. Lawyer up 2. Get a clear understanding of your professional obligations based on your credentials and memberships. While getting stiffed sucks (I still refuse to patronize businesses who stiffed me decades ago), you've got a business operation problem. You allowed this client to be 2 years in arrears. $30k is some serious money - that would keep me in beer and diesel for 20 years! I would immediately be sure you have written service agreements in place for ALL engagements. If long-time clients resist, explain that your E&O carrier requires them. At the same time, rethink your billing practices - start billing quarterly in advance or at least get 1/2 when the year end census request goes out and spell it out in the service agreement. As far as your deadbeat client, focus on recovering as much as possible and also prepare to walk away from that block of business. They left your circle of trust when they stopped paying you. If you want to try pulling their clients that you serviced , avail yourself of legal advice and don't run afoul of professional ethics/standards. None of the above will be as emotionally satisfying as the 5 actions you listed. If you need to drain some venom, visit the shooting range or rent an excavator for the weekend.

Your description of the facts suggests you might lack a written engagement with a pension plan’s sponsor or administrator, and further might lack a written engagement with the plans’ service provider. Recognizing those and other complexities, lawyer-up. About those of the pension plans that are ERISA-governed, consider Standards of performance of actuarial services, 20 C.F.R. § 901.20 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/section-901.20. Get your lawyer’s advice about whether the State law that applies to each engagement provides your retaining lien on (i) your certificates and reports not yet paid for, and (ii) those of a client’s records in your possession. If State law provides you some retaining lien, consider the extent to which Federal law supersedes State law, restraining your rights by a duty to return a client’s records. For example, 20 C.F.R. § 901.20(j)(1). Consider distinctions between a client’s records and the actuary’s work product. This is not advice to anyone. BenefitsLink neighbors, what do you think about withdrawing a Schedule SB because it was not paid for?

The 1-rollover-per-year rule only applies to distributions from IRAs, which are rolled over to another IRA. They can roll over as many distributions from plans as they like. They could also roll over multiple IRA distributions to plans without violating the rule.

First of all it they terminate the 410(k) plan, the company cannot implement a new 401(k) plan until at least 12 months after the last assets were distributed. So, there's a detriment right there. What they could do is stop investment into the funds that have surrender charges and contract with another record keeper to offer a daily-valued, participant-directed platform (like Voya or John Hancock or Empower--just examples, not necessarily recommendations). They liquidate and transfer the funds from the annuities to the new custodian as the surrender charges expire. Don't confuse where the assets are held as being 'the plan'. Assets can be moved from provider to provider, even the types of investments offered, without changing the underlying plan. Or, in other words, don't confuse a service termination with an asset custodian with a plan termination. What is your role in this? Are you in the retirement plan industry or are you just a friend asking on his behalf?

Since you said they are still working (and presumably now getting W-2 wages) and are not a 5% owner in their 1st RMD year, then they are not required to take a 2025 RMD unless they separate service before 12/31/2025. if I misunderstand the facts, that could change things.

Do they have to be "old" terminated employees? What about "young" or "middle aged" terminated emplolyees?

I'm looking at the last "hey you owe a Form 10" correspondence the PBGC sent a client a year ago, and the text you provide here is similar but not identical. In fact, the PBGC did not use the passive voice that the reportable event "has happened." They directly said the PBGC found the unpaid MRC on the 5500 and immediately provided the website for more information on the filing requirements at www.pbgc.gov.

Must resist temptation to post snarky political comment, already snuck one in yesterday.

Is "A" actually your client? Do they have a missed MRC? Looks like a scam to me. Did it come from a specific person? Any correspondence I have received from PBGC has been well written and comes from a specific person w/ numerous others cc'd.

Was thinking about that but didn't dig into - you may have something there.

Yes, for catch-up eligible participants with FICA wages in excess of $150,000

IMHO, this is two (related) questions. Yes, best practice is to gather as much data as possible, using whatever source(s) are reliable. In addition, this is a great opportunity to assist participants with reviewing/updating any beneficiary information, while reminding them (1) not updating might mean a distribution could go to someone not intended (eg, ex-spouse), and (2) it is the participant's responsibility to provide future updates.

IRS has confirmed it is staying at $11,250...

The answer is tied into the definition of "principal residence" (likely what you meant by "primary residence") which in turn is tied into other rules related to tax deductions allowed for interest on home mortgages and their associated tracing rules. See IRS Regulations 1.72(p)-1 Q&A-5, 6 and 7. "Q-5: What is a principal residence for purposes of the exception in section 72(p)(2)(B)(ii) from the requirement that a loan be repaid in five years? A-5: Section 72(p)(2)(B)(ii) provides that the requirement in section 72(p)(2)(B)(i) that a plan loan be repaid within five years does not apply to a loan used to acquire a dwelling unit which will within a reasonable time be used as the principal residence of the participant (a principal residence plan loan). For this purpose, a principal residence has the same meaning as a principal residence under section 121. Q-6: In order to satisfy the requirements for a principal residence plan loan, is a loan required to be secured by the dwelling unit that will within a reasonable time be used as the principal residence of the participant? A-6: A loan is not required to be secured by the dwelling unit that will within a reasonable time be used as the participant's principal residence in order to satisfy the requirements for a principal residence plan loan. Q-7: What tracing rules apply in determining whether a loan qualifies as a principal residence plan loan? A-7: The tracing rules established under section 163(h)(3)(B) apply in determining whether a loan is treated as for the acquisition of a principal residence in order to qualify as a principal residence plan loan." The tracing rules deal with identifying when the acquisition indebtedness was secured by the qualified residence. Also see IRS Notice 88-74 that defines acquisition indebtedness that provides an alternative of 90 days from the date of the loan as an alternative to the section 163(h)(3)(B) tracing rules in Q&A-7. Frankly, I have never seen any plan loan provisions or plan loan policy provisions or related promissory notes that specify a time period by which time the participant must begin residing at the property. Conceivably, provisions could be added to the plan or policy. Further, participants could be asked at the time of the loan is requested to certify that the property will by occupied within the prescribed time frame. If there is a lingering concern that somehow the extended time available to repay a loan for a principal residence, then consider something like it the property is not used as a principal residence within 5 years, the loan will be declared not to be a for a principal residence and will become immediately due upon reaching the end of year 5 of the loan term. Keep in mind that if the plan imposes restrictions, then the plan must make them applicable to all similarly situated participants and must administer the restrictions.

I agree with Cuse. We tell them to keep everything forever, and if they want to do otherwise, (with or without their lawyer's advice) it is up to them.

1.401(m)-2(d)(4) appears to be the linchpin on this. IT's the one that say the ratio of an HCE's match to their deferrals cannot be greater than that of any NHCE. Not sure what you all think but I don;t see anything that explicitly says that requirement cannot be performed on a consolidated basis between both matches. One requirement is that you have to satisfy one of the SH contributions--this plan does. A fixed match cannot be based on deferrals in excess of 6% of pay. This plan presumably will not do that. The last relevant requirement is that the match rate for HCE's can't be greater than NHCE's. When combined, the NHCE's will be greater (because the HCE's will be excluded from the SH Match). The reg does not say "excluding the Safe Harbor Match." I would never do this without submitting an ask the Author question of ERISApedia, but I am definitely curious if you all see something in the reg that would cause a problem. (4) Limitation on rate of match. A plan meets the requirements of this section only if the ratio of matching contributions on behalf of an HCE to that HCE's elective deferrals or employee contributions (or the sum of elective deferrals and employee contributions) for that plan year is no greater than the ratio of matching contributions to elective deferrals or employee contributions (or the sum of elective deferrals and employee contributions) that would apply with respect to any NHCE for whom the elective deferrals or employee contributions (or the sum of elective deferrals and employee contributions) are the same percentage of safe harbor compensation.

And Lethal Weapon.

Mercer projects 2026 retirement plan limits (updated) Mercer has changed its mind.

I think you are OK to put a limit on plan compensation for HCEs that is below the 401(a)(17) limit, but not until the next year. You could not do a discretionary match just for the HCEs.

I'm thinking they want to provide a lower benefit / match to the HCE's, who are primarily the CEO and CFO.

I think you need to be more specific on what type of correspondence you are referring to. If it is a document that relates to a filing the ERISA statutory retention period is 6 years (though we normally advise 8 years). If it is a document that relates to determining participant's benefit which is due or may become due, there is no set period (we recommend holding it until at least 3 years after final distribution). One big warning...do not rely on prior record keepers to retain your documents.

Before adding a new contribution source to the plan design, find out it the plan is top heavy and if yes, are any of the HCEs non-key employees.

Yeah the regs have been proposed forever, but that's all we have to work with given that the statute is generic. They're still easily accessible in the Federal Register: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2007-08-06/pdf/E7-14827.pdf The rules here piggyback on the coverage testing rules by imposing the nondiscriminatory classification test. Basically there's the safe harbor ratio percentage, and the unsafe harbor ratio percentage that requires the facts and circumstances test. See the table on page 3 here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2012-title26-vol5/pdf/CFR-2012-title26-vol5-sec1-410b-4.pdf I don't see how you could pass either with exclusively highs given that the applicable ratio percentage is is determined by dividing the percentage of non-HCPs benefitting from the plan by the percentage of HCPs who benefit. Seems to me zero divided by anything non-zero will always be zero. That's why I was saying the top-paid group (top 20%) approach would be needed and the easy workaround.

I don't think anyone mentioned the bold text below? 414(v)(2)(C). Doesn't that suggest COLA adjustments? (C) Cost-of-living adjustment (i) Certain large employers In the case of a year beginning after December 31, 2006, the Secretary shall adjust annually the $5,000 amount in subparagraph (B)(i) and the $2,500 amount in subparagraph (B)(ii) for increases in the cost-of-living at the same time and in the same manner as adjustments under section 415(d); except that the base period taken into account shall be the calendar quarter beginning July 1, 2005, and any increase under this subparagraph which is not a multiple of $500 shall be rounded to the next lower multiple of $500. In the case of a year beginning after December 31, 2025, the Secretary shall adjust annually the adjusted dollar amounts applicable under clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (E) for increases in the cost-of-living at the same time and in the same manner as adjustments under the preceding sentence; except that the base period taken into account shall be the calendar quarter beginning July 1, 2024.

Just don't forget that counting hours generally means tracking LTPT which is no bueno. I caution clients in the starkest of terms away from dealing with those rules. They are absolutely impossible to comply with. I dont care who you are, what recordkeeper, etc. They are 100% infeasible. It's laughable they even wrote it into law.

I greatly appreciate the feedback but past dealings with post-billing have been overwhelmingly positive especially with small plans with recurring annual work. This particular TPA was a reasonably good payer for 10 years and contacts at the TPA were diligent and compentent. Assuming they had business issues that I eventually picked up on but don't regret doing the work, if only for the experience. CCA is having an ethics webinar tomorrow where I hope to be able to bring this up.

But if an employer has not made a top-paid group election for any employee-benefit plan and all employees are classified as “highly compensated” within the meaning of Internal Revenue Code § 125(e)(1)(C), does this mean a § 125 plan does not discriminate “in favor of” highly-compensated participants or individuals because there are none other?

Though the listed authorities usually come out with estimates prior to the IRS formal release and their estimates are usually on point, they all still state they are estimates. Not sure when the IRS guidance will come out due to the government shutdown

@Peter Gulia, you may have seen this recent article titles Suit Says IBM’s Custom TDF Benchmarks ‘Insufficient’ https://www.napa-net.org/news/2025/11/suit-says-ibms-custom-tdf-benchmarks-insufficient/?ite=49712&ito=1681 It will be interesting to follow its progress to see if this type of litigation spreads to other plans, or even to mutual funds companies that use DIY benchmarks. This could be a motivation for a plan's legal counsel to provide input into a plan's investment benchmarks.

First, consider what provisions the documents governing the plan state. RTFD, Read The Fabulous Documents. But next, consider that a plan’s administrator often interprets a plan’s documents to anticipate provisions that might become retroactively applicable by a remedial amendment. RTFD, Read The Future Documents. Further, some plans’ administrators interpret the current documents, the anticipated documents, or both not strictly for what either text states but rather for what makes sense to fit with the Internal Revenue Code and sensible interpretations of it, including the Treasury department’s legislative and interpretive rules (to the extent a rule is not contrary to law). Yet, one should not discern a plan’s provision by looking only to the tax Code and regulations. A required beginning date and a minimum distribution can vary not only with: whether the plan mandates a distribution sooner than a § 401(a)(9) required beginning date. whether the plan allows or precludes periodic payments; whether the distribution is (or is not) an annuity, or life-expectancy payments; whether the beneficiary is the participant’s surviving spouse or someone else; whether the beneficiary is an eligible designated beneficiary; but also with which optional provisions the plan states or omits (or is deemed to state or omit); and which elections the plan permits or precludes. 26 C.F.R. § 1.401(a)(9)-3(c) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/part-1/section-1.401(a)(9)-3#p-1.401(a)(9)-3(c). Remember, that a plan could state a provision without tax-disqualifying the plan does not by itself mean that the plan does have that provision. This is not advice to anyone.

I am not sure we have enough facts to answer your question. Is this person still working at the law firm in 2025--presumably so or there doesn't seem to be an issue. Are you asking whether the switch from partner status in one year to non-partner status the following year affects or doesn't affect the start of their RMDs? I mean for retirement plan purposes, a self-employed individual (i.e., a person who has earned income for a tax year) is treated as an employee. See 401(c)(1). Also, no 5% issue. If they are still working at the law firm in 2025 with no ownership then I take that to mean they are providing services as a non-partner (a person could be a non-equity partner, i.e., no ownership, and still be a treated as a self-employed partner if they receive a share of the firm's income). A question then is whether they are providing services as an employee or as an independent contractor. Another is whether the plan has a definition of "retires" with regard to partners. Assuming they haven't retired for purposes of this query, if they are providing services to the law firm as an employee, seems like they would not be required to take a distribution simply because they have not retired (also assumes that the plan uses both the "age 73" and the "later of" rule). Otherwise, if they are providing services as an independent contractor (or not providing services at all) then it seems they would be required to take a distribution by 4/1/2026. Sorry if I am being dense or reading more into this than is necessary (overly anal)...

The Joint Committee on Taxation’s “bluebook” explanation of 2021-2022 Acts suggests JCT’s assumption that Congress intended the inflation-adjusted amount for a 60-63 participant is 150% of the inflation-adjusted amount for an age 50 participant. See page 332 (the last two sentences of the “explanation of provision”) and footnote 1505. I attach a pdf of pages 331-332. Joint Committee on Taxation, General Explanation of Tax Legislation Enacted in the 117th Congress [JCS–1–23] (Dec. 2023), available at https://www.jct.gov/publications/2023/jcs-1-23/. The explanation cites no document or other source as support for an assumption Congress intended something other than the statute’s text. A textualist interpreter might say Congress cannot have an intent other than the enacted text. It’s unclear whether the IRS will indulge or refuse JCT’s assumption, or find another way to interpret the statute’s text. JCT explanation of age 60-63 catch-up.pdf

$12,000 is what seems logical, but... The plain language of 414(v)(2)(E)(i)(II) says 150% of the amount in effect for 2024, which would be $11,250.

Beyond law, listen, carefully, to Paul I’s observations about civility and practical sense. And about an ethics code that results from membership in a voluntary association, here’s one bit: “. . . . The Actuary shall not refuse to consult or cooperate with the prospective new or additional actuary based upon unresolved compensation issues with the Principal unless such refusal is in accordance with a pre-existing agreement with the Principal. . . . .” American Academy of Actuaries, Code of Professional Conduct, Precept 10, Annotation 10-5 https://actuary.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/code_of_conduct.8_1.pdf.

A form of this question was posed in the ASPPA 2002 Annual Conference - IRS Questions and Answers question 5: 5. If a 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan uses an individual funding vehicle with a $2,000 threshold and the business owners are able to immediately move into this funding vehicle that had multiple investment options, but non-owners with smaller 401(k) contributions are in a pooled money market until they reach the $2000 threshold, is this discriminatory? What if the threshold is $10,000? $25,000? $100,000? This is a benefits, rights and features issue and, depending on the facts, could either pass or fail. Also note that SDBAs got a lot of attention in EBSA's Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2012-02R, not about a dollar threshold, but about all of the disclosures that must be provided to all plan participants about SBDAs as an investment option.

Passage of time typically means that the participant becomes eligible after a period of time without regard to any service or breaks in service. It's similar to elapsed time, but without the service spanning rules - or rather, if the service spanning period were forever, instead of 12 months. Say an employee was hired on 11/6/2025, works for 2 months and quits on 1/6/2026. Then they show up again a year later and are re-hired on 3/1/2027. They are in the plan immediately on 3/1/2027, because more than 6 months have passed since their original date of hire. Contrast that to elapsed time, where they wouldn't get credit for their period of severance (because it was more than 12 months) and would have to work another 4 months after being re-hired in order to have earned a total of 6 months of elapsed time. It's probably a good idea to keep the 1000 hours failsafe in the document. While I can't think of a situation where it would override a 6 month passage-of-time requirement, maybe there are some class exclusions that it would be needed for. It also gives you some assurance, because it sounds like this passage-of-time provision is custom language added to the document. So, on the off chance that the IRS finds issue with it on audit, then at least you have the standard language to fall back on. As far as applying break-in-service rules, I don't think they would apply. But ultimately the interpretation of the plan document is up to the Plan Administrator, so they should abide by their best judgement, taking into account what has been communicated to participants about the rule, and probably with they lawyer's advice.

Question 1. Depends. A fiduciary of an ERISA governed plan may eliminate a group annuity contract (GAC) and not breach their fiduciary duties, even if the participants incur large losses. However, this is a legal question that depends on the facts and circumstances and would only be answered after a participant files suit and there is a determination in court. Here, where the plan sponsor by its actions is going to create large individual losses, you friend should be taking all actions necessary to minimize the risk of a finding of breach of fiduciary duty. Your friend needs to be able to show that he fulfilled his ERISA fiduciary duties. He can’t just say I don’t like the GAC and I want mutual funds. He has to show that he conducted a prudent and detailed analysis of whether surrendering the GAC and paying the surrender charge is in the best interest of the participants as a whole, taking into consideration the current market and participant needs. He should do a detailed comparison of the various alternatives, i.e., holding the GAC, a partial surrender, total surrender, costs of other investments, etc.. It is a given that he must show that he followed all the plan provisions and also the GAC provisions to ensure that the minimal surrender charges were paid. If possible, he should consult with an independent financial advisor/expert (preferably not the advisor he is moving to.. to avoid conflicts of interest) to ensure the decision was prudent and in the best interest of the participants. As with all fiduciary decisions, but especially here where there may a high risk of litigation (he is in essence creating a loss), he must be certain to document his decision (including detailed records of all the analysis performed, alternatives considered, the decision-making process, and the reasons for the final decision to surrender the GAC, etc.). Also, he should attempt to effectively communicate the change to the participants showing how it is in their best interest to do this. Of course, he has to walk a fine law … if he shows the GAC is such a bad deal someone might consider filing suit questioning the initial decision to put all the money in the GAC in the first place. Another option which many plan sponsors utilize when in this situation is simply freezing the GAC and redirecting new contributions into new investments, e.g., mutual funds. Here, he simply stops adding any more money to the GAC and in essence starts a new investment plan with the new mutual fund investment slate. At the point the GAC surrender period expires, he would terminate the GAC without the surrender charges and the GAC money would then flow into the new investments. Don’t know how long the surrender period is but at least for some of the money the participants will have more control. He may need to amend the plan for this. It doesn’t sound like your friend would want to do this but some plan sponsors will pay the surrender charges. Paying the surrender charges is more complex under the tax code and, if desired, your friend should consult an ERISA benefits attorney. see @CuseFan Question 2. This allocation should already be addressed in the plan and the GAC. All qualified plans must have “definitely determinable” benefits. Even though the funds are all invested in a single GAC, there should be current terms under which those funds are allocated to each of the participants. As you state, they are all getting statements now that track the amounts in the GAC allocated to each of the participants. The surrender charges would be allocated amongst the participants under a formula in the plan/GAC. There must have been participants who terminated employment and qualified for a distribution from the plan. How were their benefits determined? Overall, your friend should stay away from any type of modification or amendment of these provisions. Just thoughts...