Gina Alsdorf

Having been through the ringer once to convince the DOL that a plan was not subject to filing because it was governmental, I would say prospectively notify them, maybe amend the last filing to include an attachment explains why they are no longer filing? If they request a filing, and you are exempt, you may still have to submit a reason.

If you know the recordkeeper at the time, you can ask them, sometimes data is kept longer than the required period. I just would not hold my breath on this one. Most have a six year plus current year data retention schedule.

Tuition, related educational fees and room and board expenses for the next 12 months of postsecondary education for the employee or the employee’s spouse, children, dependents or beneficiary. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/retirement-topics-hardship-distributions

I don't know that the "warranty" is the reason people pay out but I have seen various settlements over the years that pay out what would have been warrantied. It seems to be that customer service issues and strategic relationships drive outcomes more than the promises made.

I'd see this movie.

If there is a regional ESOP association, I would look into it. I have been to a couple of their meetings and they were very helpful with content. Good Luck.

I have seen something like this only with annuity contracts where the individual went through VCP to untangle. I think it's was hard to undo what was done but they did the best they could and the IRS blessed it.

I've seen years many times. I actually worked as an investigator for the EBSA as my first job out of law school. Average case time was like nine months to a year. Many went to 18 or 24 months. If you want to chat more, please feel free to inbox me.

I've seen this a few times over the years but I have never seen it done with the MRVA. The prosecutors avoided any issues by having the individual take a distribution and pay restitution as part of the settlement agreement. The individuals had had distributable events, the downside was there was withholding because it wasn't forced.

It works poorly. That's what I would say.

Downside, matching could not be subject to vesting as ROTH. IMHO that is the big one.

It's a fan favorite 😀

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/epchd704.pdf Have you checked out the IRS manual, if you look on 7-46 there is an ASG flowchart. I like it.

This sounds problematic. Usually it results in fees being uneven from plan to plan which can create issues from a fiduciary perspective. If one plan is supplementing another's fees it can create a "sole benefit" issue. It could be a MEP or a PEP or some sort of omnibus investment only account that another recordkeeper is recordkeeping, or some other passable arrangement but from the limited description it sounds problematic. Gina Alsdorf Sharholder, Carlton Fields www.carltonfields.com galsdorf@carltonfields.com Any postings to Benefitslink are my own thoughts, and do not represent my law firm's position on any given matter. The contents of my postings are offered for informational purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice. No post or interaction on Benefitslink creates an attorney client privilege. You should consult with a qualified attorney for advice regarding your specific situation.

Unfortunately the trust document will generally govern disputes. You should request a copy of the plan document on behalf of the estate, and read the language for yourself.

Lincoln Financial has a good one on their Secure 2.0 website. https://www.lincolnfinancial.com/public/general/secureact It is labeled reference guide for DC Plans.

Some 401(k)'s have default priority in the plan, some do not, some follow the intestate rules of the state. You have to look at the specific plan document to understand how assets pass.