Company has 3 employees:  owner and one other work full time. other works part time (under 1000 hrs/yr).

All participant are in the PS (no 401k) plan and part timer receives PS every year (eligibility is simply last day worked)

Owner wants to convert part time employee to independent contractor status and not allocate additional PS to part timer.

Part timer is 40% vested due to initial years of employment, so I'm curious if there is a partial termination situation here that would result in him becoming fully vested.

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

Have you ever had a client misuse your work to unfairly influence a third person?

The professional-conduct code of the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries and other divisions of the American Retirement Association includes this:

“A Stakeholder [a Member or a Credential Holder] shall not perform Professional Services when the Stakeholder has reason to believe that they may be altered in a material way or may be used to violate or evade the Law. The Stakeholder should recognize the risk that materials prepared by the Stakeholder could be misquoted, misinterpreted, or otherwise misused by another party to influence the actions of a third party{,} and should take reasonable steps to ensure that the material is presented fairly and that the sources of the material are identified.” Am. Ret. Ass’n, Code of Pro. Conduct, Control of Work Product (amended May 2026), https://fcwpol.files.cmp.optimizely.com/download/cea33626560611f18c27b2e7a7a4a6b0.

In your real-world experience, how often does it happen that something you wrote or compiled was used with a person beyond your client?

Was your writing misused?

Did someone use your materials to persuade a person beyond your client that you support a conclusion, opinion, or advice that’s not your advice?

When someone used your materials to persuade a person beyond your client that you support a conclusion you did not express, do you feel you had failed to prepare for the risk that your work could be misused?

Or, would the misuse have happened no matter how carefully you expressed your work?

Do you think what the rule asks is fair to the professional?

Should a professional have a duty to guard against the possibility that someone other than one’s client misunderstands your work you presented to your client?

And, most important, why or why not?

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

FINRA rule change—Trump Accounts under Code §530A

Publication: July 7, 2026
Federal Register document: 2026-13648
Source: FINRA Rule 3210 treatment of Code §530A accounts
Comments due: July 28, 2026

FINRA amended Rule 3210 to except Code §530A Trump Accounts from its requirements concerning accounts maintained by associated persons at other broker-dealers or financial institutions.

Consequently, associated persons generally will not need:

• prior written employer-firm consent;
• notice to the institution holding the Trump Account; or
• duplicate confirmations and account statements under Rule 3210.

FINRA treated the change as immediately effective, citing the standardized, passive nature of Trump Accounts and their limited eligible investments

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

Top Heavy Determination Date of 12/31/2025 for calendar year plan. (not a first year plan)

Client funds a 2025 Plan year contribution in 3/2026. 

Is the contribution funded in 3/2026 included as a receivable in the 12/31/2025 balance?

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

A Plan participant was mistakenly terminated in the TPA’s system on 9-30-2025, which stopped his loan payments.  In November 2025, a 1099-R was issued using Code M (plan loan offset).  The error was not discovered until May 2026 after the maximum cure period expired.  Since his employment did not terminate, I believe he should have been issued a 2026 Form 1099-R using Code L (deemed distribution).

Normally, we would advise the loan be reinstated.  However, since the error was not discovered until after the maximum cure period had expired, the TPA is unable to reinstate the loan.  The employee was harmed by the error since his loan became taxable.  Does anyone have any suggestions as to how this can be remedied under the Plan? 

View the full text of this job opportunity

Hi all, Any suggestions on recurring emails to subscribe to as a replacement for the old benefitslink newsletter? I don't think i realized how much I relied on those to keep myself up to date on H&W matters until they disappeared! Appreciate any and all suggestions. Thanks!