Hi all, 

I've been doing this for what seems forever and I've started to think maybe I should be working for myself.  Does anyone have any leads or are aware of someone wishing to sell their TPA practice in the near future?  

thanks!!

 29 CFR Section 2530.206(c) states that 

"(c) Timing.
(1) Subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this section, a domestic relations order shall not fail to be treated as a qualified domestic relations order solely because of the time at which it is issued."  We all know what this means or do we.  It certainly means that a QDRO can be entered for the benefit of the Alternate Payee if the Participant had died before a QDRO is approved. But does it also mean that the estate of the Alternate Payee can obtain a QDRO if the Alternate Payee dies before a QDRO has been entered? 

We know this means that, with respect to defined benefit an defined contribution plans, a QDRO can be entered in favor of an Alternate Payee if the Participant has died before the QDRO was approved. 

But can the Alternate Payee's estate obtain a QDRO when it is the Alternate Payee that has died before the QDRO has been entered and you are dealing with a ERISA qualified defined contribution plan? 

Thanks,

David

View the full text of this job opportunity

Two corps have the same owners and are a controlled group. 

Instead of opening one DB Plan to cover both corps, two DB plans were set up. 

One DB plan for each corp.

One owner was placed in plan A that covered him and the employees of corp 1 and the other owner was placed in the plan B that covered him and the employees of corp 2.

1. Owner 1 in plan A was supposed to take an RMD from plan A. Inadvertently took the RMD from plan B. 

Is this an issue, or since this is a control group, the plans technicly cover both entities?

2. What if owner 1 in plan A for a few years deposited his contributions into plan B, Inadvertently? 

Thank you for any insights into this!

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

Is it common to send COBRA participants as of prior eoy who no longer have COBRA a copy of the prior year SAR?

One client is resistant.

We are in the US and the employee in question works in the US.    We use the safe harbor hardship definition.  This participant was originally hired in 2017 but had two small periods of non-employment (1-3 months) before being rehired in 2019 and working uninterrupted since then.  They are applying for a hardship withdrawal to prevent eviction from their "primary residence"--which is in Australia.  I vote not to approve.  Any thoughts?

Logistics of the situation:

- PBGC Plan, S Corp, Involves testing, Plan Eff date is within the last 5 years (for purposes of 436 restrictions)

- 2025 Valuation completed (signed report but no SB) by prior Actuary, BOY Valuation, AFTAP over 100% certified before September 2025

- After takeover, decided to redo the 2025 valuation and valuation date changed to End of Year. No other assumptions changed. Automatic approval for change to end of year due to Revenue Procedure 2017-56 Section 4.01. 

Do I need to re-certify the 2025 AFTAP or can I rely on prior Actuary's AFTAP and use it on the 2025 SB?

To clarify, the 2025 valuation report is expected to be recertified in next few weeks (say 6/15/2026). So, if I cannot rely on prior Actuary, will the AFTAP restrictions apply until certified?

Thanks!

View the full text of this job opportunity

Terminated participant took final distribution. Nonvested portion has been forfeited.

As this was the only non-key participant, the full forfeiture account balance is from this participant.

Plan has since decided to make a PS contribution for the prior plan year, and this participant is due a top heavy min 3% contribution.

Plan doc allows forfeitures to be used towards top heavy minimum contributions.

Doesn't seem to feel right, but any reason the top heavy minimum contribution cannot come from participant's own forfeitures?

View the full text of this job opportunity

We have a plan that has moved from a group variable annuity to a mutual fund based investment arrangement.  Do I need to file a schedule D if the plan only has mutual funds? As from our knowledge it does not meet the 4 required entities to file a schedule D.

Title: Texas QDRO: Post-Divorce Contributions in a TIAA RA/CREF Defined Contribution Plan ("Date of Transfer")

I am seeking insight from QDRO drafters or plan administrators regarding a Texas case involving a Defined Contribution plan—specifically TIAA-CREF RA, CREF, and non-CREF funds—and ongoing post-divorce contributions. Because these are active market-tied funds, they are moving significantly up or down with current market fluctuations. The RA receives ½ of the monthly contribution from (employer/employee), and ½ to CREF.

The divorce was finalized in December 2025. The contracts remain active, meaning the Participant continues making regular monthly contributions, commingling his post-divorce separate property with the community base. The Alternate Payee's attorney is currently preparing the initial DRO draft to submit for TIAA pre-approval.

The MSA, incorporated into the Final Decree, explicitly awards the Alternate Payee "50% of the community property interest of the total vested account balance as of the date of transfer excluding any outstanding loans but including any interest, dividends, gains, or losses on that amount arising since that date." Crucially, the decree contains no explicit carve-out instructing the plan to exclude post-divorce contributions.

My questions are:

1. The Mechanical "What": Because TIAA executes mechanically based on the "Date of Transfer," will they simply apply the 50% pro-rata split to the total commingled unit balance on the actual transfer date without retroactively untangling the post-divorce contributions?
2. The Drafting Rules: Can a QDRO drafter legally introduce a retroactive carve-out for those contributions if it was never authorized or mentioned in the underlying Rule 11 agreement or MSA? (Note: The Participant has not made any claims to these post-divorce contributions during this ongoing delay).
3. The Legal "Why": If the Alternate Payee does indeed receive a share of these commingled post-divorce contributions due to the "Date of Transfer" language, why is this the default outcome? Does it come down to strict contract law (interpreting the literal text of the decree), or is it driven by the administrative impossibility of plan administrators untangling commingled accumulation units months after the fact?

Any insight into TIAA's mechanical administration of this scenario, Texas drafting standards, or the reasoning behind how these commingled funds are handled would be greatly appreciated.

Section 305 of Secure Act 2.0 seems to greatly expand the use of Self-Correction of plan errors. This is a good thing.

It appears to also allow for the self-correction of significant demographic errors like failing a 401(a)4 Nondiscrimination test. The confusing part of this is where it indicates that the plan must follow the correction methods and procedures of 1.401(a)4-11g . One of the requirements of 11g is that the correction is made by the 15th day after the 9th month following the close of the plan year (October 15). However, 305 of the Secure Act 2.0 allows for correction by the 18th month after discovery of the plan failure.

Suppose you have a 12/31/2024 plan year end and it is discovered on 12/15/2025 that the plan sponsor did not execute (inadvertently) the 11g amendment provided to them on 10/1/2025. To me, this would be the failure and this failure was discovered 12/15/2025 and would need to be corrected under Self Correction by 6/15/2027 (18 months). Actually, what happened here was that the plan sponsor funded the extra $765 to a participant before the 10/15/2025 date but inadvertently set aside the amendment and did not sign it by the 10/15/2025 date.

What do you think applies to be able to Self Correct the error?  the 11g amendment requirement itself that the amendment be executed by 10/15/2025 or the overall Self Correction requirement that the amendment be executed by 18 months after the discovery of the failure (despite having funded the additional contribution before 10/15/2025)?

Thanks.  

This one seems easy but confirmation is always appreciated.

Company A:

Dad owns 78%

Trust #1 owns 11% (trust is a non-grantor trust for which Dad's adult daughter X is the trustee and sole beneficiary)

Trust #2 owns 11% (same as above but for Dad's adult son Y)

Company B:

Dad owns 50%

Trust #3 owns 25% (trust is a non-grantor trust for which X is the trustee and sole beneficiary)

Trust #4 owns 25% (same as above but for Y)

Brother-sister controlled group or not?

I think YES, for these reasons:

1. The trust shares are attributed to X and Y (and for the Company A shares, those are attributed to Dad)

2. After attribution:

Company A:

Dad owns 78% (100% by attribution)

X owns 11%

Y owns 11%

Company B:

Dad owns 50%

X owns 25%

Y owns 25%

Dad, X and Y own more than 80% of both Company A and Company B, and more than 50% of Company A and Company B taking into account identical ownership (50% Dad, 11% X and 11% Y).

Anyone disagree?

Intent is to avoid politics here. The situation goes back to 2018.

Missing participant who was not cashing RMD checks has been found and turns out was never missing, just doesn't want to cash a check for fear of being located by the government. Unknown whether participant is legal or illegal but there is an SSNO (Sorry I don't know details about all that). Yes 1099-R's are sent annually.

Just trying to be creative here on how to get them their money. One idea - has anyone ever managed to get cash from a Plan to give out the RMD rather than in check form?

Total account balance is < $20,000.  Total outstanding uncashed RMD's < $1,000.

I have a prior client who terminated their DB plan back in 2021. He recently applied for his benefit in the PWGA plan (he is deemed "a loan out corporation") and was expecting around 5,000/month. When we terminated his plan, he had 6 years of participation and received a lump sum based on 60% of the 2021 dollar limit. Logically, I feel he should still have 40% of the dollar limit left (he has over 10 years of participation when combined), but the PWGA plan froze the 415 dollar limit at the 2007 level. Because of this, they have taken the position that the 180,000 (prior to reductions) is the 415 limit and reduced his benefit to roughly 1,500 (claiming the full amount would violate 415). This is true if using the 180,000 dollar limit from 2007, but not an issue when using current dollar limits (following a good faith interpretation of 415 rules with MASD's)

For 415 aggregation purposes, it seems logical to use the unfrozen limit (allowing him to receive his full benefit in the PWGA plan), but I can't seem to find any guidance. Had he commenced benefits in the PWGA plan first, I would have reflected that benefit with the single employer plan and concluded there was no issue. Why should the order matter? Has anyone come across this issue?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Has anyone seen an expanded Uniform Lifetime Table that lists ages less than 70?

Per the SECURE 2.0 changes, spousal beneficiaries can now elect to use the ULT factors instead of the SLA factors when they inherit a qualified retirement plan account.  Under the final regulations, it appears that a spousal beneficiary must still begin RMDs as of the December 31st of the year in which the participant would have reach RMD age, if she has not moved her balance to an IRA.  (Derrin Watson has a good explanation here: https://ferenczylaw.com/flashpoint-the-final-rmd-regulations-the-high-points/)

 For example, a participant born in 1953 dies in 2021.  His spouse, born in 1957, does not move the balance out of the plan until 2026.  In 2026, the participant would have been 73, so an RMD must be distributed prior to rolling the balance to an IRA.  The spouse is only age 69, and she elects to use the more favorable ULT factors. 

I'm having a difficult time finding a ULT table based on the 2022 updates that lists ages less than 70 (most start at 72, but did find a few starting at age 70).