for Employee Benefits Security Administration [EBSA] (Washington DC / Hybrid)

View the full text of this job opportunity

Hi,

Thank you as always. Someone mentioned to me that he was on a conference call with an actuary that works for the PBGC. The actuary suggested, as a remedy for overfunding (since the 417 (e) rates have gone up to the 5% range and lump sums have gone down) to amend the plan's equivalence to the 2% range and this would help raise the liabilties and reduce the overfunding. 

Is this reasonable to use an interest rate that is quite low,  for the plan equivalence,  and is considerably lower than the current 417(e) rates? Can it be justified?

This could help solve many overfunded plans, and especially owner only plans (that don't mind raisingvthe liabities fir themselves). Thank you.  

for Ascensus (Remote)

View the full text of this job opportunity

I have been experimenting with a new way to use Form 5500 data, and I am curious whether retirement plan professionals would find it useful—or consider it a bridge too far.

I built a connection between a Form 5500 databaase and AI agents such as Claude Code and Codex. The technical name for the connection is an “MCP,” but the simplest explanation is that it works like a secure data source.

A normal AI chatbot can talk and write using the open internet, but it cannot automatically reach into a specialized database. The MCP gives it permission to ask PlanProvider.Pro (like Judy Diamond) specific questions and return source-linked answers. You still ask the question in plain English.

For example:

• “Look up the retirement plan for these five companies and summarize the latest filing year, participants, and assets.”
• “Who are the listed advisor, auditor, recordkeeper, and administrator for this plan?”
• “Find retirement plan auditors in Texas and show me their profiles.”
• “Turn this named list of prospective employers into a research brief and identify possible reasons for a conversation."

So the real question may not be, “Would you let AI do your client acqustion research?” It may be, “Which parts of prospect research would you trust it to prepare before a human reviews the work?”

I would especially like to hear from the skeptics:

• What research task would you try first?
• Where would you require a human checkpoint?
• What mistake or privacy concern would make you refuse to use it?

Here is the plain-English overview and setup guide:
https://planprovider.pro/form-5500-ai-mcp

Full disclosure: I built this, and I am looking for candid feedback—not just compliments.

Beginning in calendar year 2026, HHS guidance provided a new premium growth measure that captures increases in individual market premiums in addition to increases in employer-sponsored insurance premiums for purposes of calculating the premium adjustment percentage for the 2026 benefit year and beyond.

For plan years beginning in calendar year 2027, the Required Contribution Percentage for purposes of § 36B(c)(2)(C)(i)(II) and § 1.36B-2(c)(3)(v)(C) is 10.22%.

Full text of IRS Rev. Proc. 2026-26 is here.

The proposed rule would establish a safe harbor allowing approximately 2.8 million group health plans covered by ERISA to provide required documents digitally. Group health plans currently print and mail up to 11 billion sheets of paper each year. The department estimates the proposal could save group health plans $3.9 billion over 10 years while giving participants and beneficiaries easier, more reliable access to their health plan information.

Any comments?

Client found that their payroll system was not accurately calculating match for employees participating in Catch-Up. The correction should be to make up the missed match along with any earnings, correct? And there is no waiver or anything (Similar to missed deferrals caught early enough to avoid the need for a QNEC) that exists for match, is there?

That said, if they do not correct this during the year, these employees should be made whole when the company funds their year-end match true-up. I have never seen these include earnings.

Is there any reason for this and is there anything the client should consider before choosing one option versus the other? If "correcting" this with the true-up and not funding earnings an issue? Is there a reason that this should be done with earnings because it violates any rule?

The client is the one who brought this up as they don't see why it should matter how they do it as long as they do and I want to make sure I explain what they're missing, if anything.

Thanks!

We had a plan with 4 sponsors - a controlled group.

In 2025 2 of the sponsor's participants were spun off to a new plan in anticipation of those 2 sponsor being sold in 2026 and no longer being a controlled group.

We were told to make sure the new plan for the spin off had the same effective date at the original plan so that it was clear it was a continuation and not a new plan that would be subject to the auto enrollment rules.

For the first 5500 for 2025, for the plan's effective date, do I use the original plan's effective date from a prior year with a full plan year - or the date of the spin off and show it as a short 1st year?

for Ameritas (Remote)

View the full text of this job opportunity

Good morning, we just took over a plan with a unique Safe Harbor formula and I just wanted to make sure it was acceptable.

The formula is:

100% of the first 1% deferred + 50% of the next 5% deferred

So, you basically get 3.5% if you defer at least 6% (instead of the typical 4% of comp if you defer at least 5%).  Is this an acceptable formula?  Just not one that I've seen before, so I wanted to double check.

Thanks in advance!

for CBIZ (North Canton OH / Independence OH / Phoenix AZ / Boca Raton FL / Atlanta GA / Fort Wayne IN / Kansas City MO / Saint Louis MO / Philadelphia PA / Nashville TN / Dallas TX / Houston TX / Hybrid)

View the full text of this job opportunity

for CBIZ (North Canton OH / Independence OH / Phoenix AZ / Boca Raton FL / Atlanta GA / Fort Wayne IN / Kansas City MO / Saint Louis MO / Philadelphia PA / Nashville TN / Dallas TX / Houston TX / Jackson WI / Hybrid)

View the full text of this job opportunity

for CBIZ (North Canton OH / Independence OH / Phoenix AZ / Boca Raton FL / Atlanta GA / Lewiston ID / Kansas City MO / Saint Louis MO / Philadelphia PA / Nashville TN / Dallas TX / Houston TX / Jackson WI / Hybrid)

View the full text of this job opportunity

Hello -

Seeking compliance clarification on a few items.

1. HIPAA Special Enrollment Rights - Do I understand correctly that when an employee experiences of these events, in addition to adding a spouse or child to coverage, they must be allowed to add other dependents and change health, dental, vision plan elections? 

2. Section 125 Plan Safe Harbor requiring reinstatement of same coverage within 30 days of loss of coverage due to rehire, expiration of benefit eligible FMLA or non-FMLA leave. Can an employer require/allow employee to make new elections if they want to? If so, should this be specified in the Plan Document and SPD?

 

DRO (titled "QDRO," and which facially meets QDRO req's) was issued by state court in 1996 dividing husband's account in a 401(k) plan (the "Old Plan") equally between husband and ex-wife as of a certain date in 1996, including "any earnings and losses on [the divided] sum from said date to the valuation date preceding distribution." QDRO stated that ex-wife's "sum shall be left in [Old Plan] but transferred to the name of Alternate Payee as soon as practicable after the order is deemed qualified and following receipt of a certified copy of this order by the Plan Administrator." It appears this 1996 QDRO was never submitted to Old Plan. Over the years, Old Plan underwent a number of successions based on company mergers and acquisitions, and in 2022 was being administered by what I'll call "Intermediary Plan." In 2022, plan sponsor of Intermediary Plan sold a portion of its business to a new company, which then created its own 401(k) plan ("New Plan"). Husband's account in Intermediary Plan was transferred from Intermediary Plan to New Plan via a 401(k) to 401(k) trustee to trustee rollover, i.e., a non-taxable distribution.

Now, nearly 30 years after the 1996 QDRO was first issued, husband died and ex-wife submitted the 1996 QDRO to New Plan (husband's entire account in New Plan would otherwise pass to deceased husband's new wife). It appears to New Plan that this was the first time the QDRO has ever been submitted to any plan. New Plan contacted Intermediary Plan about the existence of any QDRO and Intermediary Plan stated that it had no record of any QDRO related to husband at all. None of New Plan's records, including those relating to the 2022 rollover, state anything relating to the existence or possible existence of a QDRO. New Plan doesn't know what to do. Even if the QRDO is valid as to the New Plan (which seems unlikely, especially given the 2022 distribution), New Plan seems unable as a practical matter to account for any amount that might be owed to the ex-wife because New Plan has no idea what the value of the account was on the date it was putatively divided in 1996, and all of the subsequent contributions by husband and/or his employer after the division date (and the growth/loss thereon) would be his alone.

Any input on this unusual situation would be greatly appreciated. It seems to me that 1996 QDRO is inapplicable to New Plan (because New Plan is not legally a successor to Old Plan and/or Intermediary Plan, though I'm not 100% certain of this conclusion), meaning New Plan should distribute the account to new wife. But maybe the best thing for New Plan to do is file an interpleader and let the court sort it out? Or perhaps ask ex wife to go back to state court to try to obtain a QDRO directed to New Plan?

Thanks in advance!

A participant passed away, and the most recent beneficiary form shows his mother as primary beneficiary and sister as contingent beneficiary.  We have confirmed that there are no spouses, children, or anyone else in the picture.  Mother is in an elder-care facility with dementia, and Sister has a POA "for all financial matters" - we've asked for a copy of the POA to confirm.

What's the right direction here? Let's assume that the POA does say what we're told it says.  I assume we can then take direction directly from Sister and distribute however she completes the forms?

Is there any particular language that I should be looking for on the POA?  I understand that this might be attorney-time, but if I can facilitate this somehow, I'd like to help.

Thanks.

If for 2025 a participant age 50 made 401(k) deferrals of $7,500 can they make a profit sharing contribution of $70,000 (assuming salary supports it) to get to the maximum annual addition by characterizing the $7,500 401(k) deferral as catch-up?

for EGPS (a Blue Ridge Company) (Remote / Baxter MN)

View the full text of this job opportunity

for Navia Benefits (Remote)

View the full text of this job opportunity