MoJo

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner. What C.B. say! and we've gotten this question too.... Trouble is, in the not for profit space, there are still providers that are the lender (not the plan), and some think that's the only way. TIAA, you know it's true. 😜

Until that "one" issue that costs you your reputation.... No insurance covers that.

No such thing as an "airtight" agreement. As pointed out, co-fiduciary liability will easily trump any limitation of liability language in an agreement. We're becoming a "limited" 3(16) service provider (bundled recordkeeping) and it scares the bezeesus out of me. The language we use (approved by outside counsel) is that in a pinch, the plan sponsor reassumes responsibility. But we are still a fiduciary, so we're responsible for their misdeeds when that happens. No win. Just a risk to assume.

I prefer "I see nothing, I hear nothing, I know nothing - therefore -caveat emptor."

Interestingly, our clients don't hire counsel to do so. It isn't difficult, and if they have actually done the correction, all of the data necessary to file is at their fingertips. They routinely ask us to do it for them, but when we explain the process (and sometimes hold their hands), it is a no-brainer. Indeed, just last week I got an email from an RM at our organization forwardin an email from a client indicating it was a completely painless process....

Simply put - I don't know. The effort expended to comply with the invite is insignificant to the trouble an "investigation" would cause should they choose to do so - even if the change of such an investigation is small. We advise compliance with the invite, and our clients always do so - and therefore have no experience with whether it might trigger a review. I can say that when our clients have complied, I've *never* seen a follow up of any kind from the DOL - so, "cheap insurance"?

Yes, but we get correspondence from the DOL talking about an "audit." But then again, I mentioned that they have guns - so I'll call them whatever they want me to call them...... 🙂

Well, not to nit-pick, but they do "audit" but do them using those they call "Senior Investigators" who have badges and guns (I hired one, once).

Our rule of thumb is if the DOL "invites" a plan sponsor to do something, do it. We see these a couple times a year - and usually they include both an invite to the VFCP program as well as an invite to a "fiduciary responsibility webinar they have available.... And document that it has happened. The DOL does not consider the matter "fixed" without the VFCP filing - so even if an earnings adjustment occurred, and even if a 5330 was filed, we advise to accept the invite, and file. $1.18 or not - you never know what they will decide to look at *if* they audit....

One can always ask the court to enforce it's order against the offending spouse - but as ESOP Guy says, unless the order is submitted to the plan and determined to be a "Q"DRO, it can't be enforced against the plan.

I don't think we have enough information to actually answer the question. 1) Was the loan from your account or a pooled investment from the plan? 2) When you say "vested account balance" does that include - or not include -the amount of the balance on the loan? The answers above assume that the answers were "loan from your account" and "no" respectively.

We've been known to call the coroner to find out who claimed the body.... In any event, as others has said, there *is* an estate, it's just not being administered. ANYONE can administer the estate, if approved by the court. If the amount is big enough, someone can go to probate court, get appointed administrator, take the assets, then under direction of the court, disburse them. Perhaps charity, or escheatment.... Otherwise, probably the best bet is to forfeit - but if an heir comes forward down the road, pray the statute of limitations has run.

What you have pointed out is in fact the problem with "complying" with the DOL suggestions. And as well, there is no "standard" apart from NIST, etc., which in may parts are inapplicable with this particular issue/industry. We've had many, many clients ask that we incorporate in compliance with "industry standards" and we refuse - because there aren't any, won't be any, and it's as bad as "commercially reasonable." Our solution, by the way, was to simply indemnify the client and plan from any loss suffered as a result of cybersecurity incident, and compliance with applicable laws (mostly state laws) with respect to remedies for privacy issues.

Well, if you are asking what r/k's put in their service agreements, it's all over the board, I'm sure. If you are asking about what they do to protect plan data, I'm also sure they all have robust cybersecurity protocols, but can't tell you what they are (because that in and of itself would be a cybersecurity breach). There really ar eno "universally" agreed upon "standards" (yet), although the NIST standards appear to be the starting point of may I'm familiar with. We have a "written information security program" document which we provide to clients, which, if you read it thoroughly demonstrates compliance (and much much more) with the DOL suggestions. Because of the DOL's announcement, we are developing more of a marketing piece, that parallels the DOL's "suggestions" point by point. Furthermore, we have cybersecurity committments in our services agreement, BUT DO NOT REPRESENT THAT WE "COMPLY" WITH THE DOL PROTOCOLS - because 1) they are suggestions, not "requirements;" 2) because they can change at any time; and 3) our IT security experts laughed at them as being woefully superficial, and beneath the dignity of any real IT security program. We tell our clients that - and teach them that asking for a commitment to follow the DOL is probably a fiduciary breach - as it is a shortcut that might not be sufficient. They need to know more, and understand more to not be a bad fiduciary.

I once took a check and distribution paperwork to the courthouse - minutes before a sentencing hearing. Participant signed the paperwork, I handed over the check, participant endorsed the back of the check over to the employer and then stood before the judge for sentencing (thinking his good will gesture would have an impact). He got the max (15 years) in Ohio's Lucasville prison. This produced a noticeable odor in the courtroom as the "Pillsbury Dough Boy" like new convict contemplated his fate (and the physique of his possible roommate).... Besides that, we every year or so get a MVRA order signed by a judge, presented by the AUSA for the district, and distribute the funds pursuant to the order.... But NOT without an appropriate MVRA order (and I've had judges issue "garnishment" orders that don't work against a retirement plan, and then have them threaten *me* with imprisonment....)

So you're dropping the "Your Majesty" part?

The lawyer in me is going to come out here (my apologies, in advance), but I think doing so (with one exception) is stupid. It's hard enough to get employers/plan administrators/recordkeepers to read a document, and making it difficult for them to see the whole thing in one place aggravates that problem. That said, "legally" I think is permissible - but it may eliminate reliance on any determination/opinion letter issued for the document. The one exception - and one I've used myself - is with respect to a collectively bargained plan, where the contributions are defined by what the CBA specifies - which may change from time to time independent of the plan document.

Whoa! Your questions all relate to state law issues - not necessarily retirement plan issues. A political subdivision of a state only has the authority granted to it by the state - and hence, someone will have to look into whether any of this is allowed under that state's laws. I would venture to guess that a governmental entity can't "own" a for-profit subsidiary - as that in essence 1) makes the "for-profit" entity a governmental entity; and 2) may actually be a violation of the states tax laws (being for profit, it essentially is a revenue booster over and above what might otherwise be authorized).

Good luck getting the 1099 rectified. Our experience is that 1) it's impossible, and 2) even if you can do it, there are penalties due to the IRS for the "correction." As far as the recipient, while painful, the only approach is to have a discussion with the IRS about the double reporting, having the former employer and perhaps the bank provide documentation that the income was received once, but reported twice.

Sorry for your situation. A couple of things, though. First, the parties don't need to "agree" on a QDRO. It is an order of the Court - and if the divorce was granted with a settlement of retirement plan rights, the judge can issue that order (a QDRO) without the parties doing anything to agree to it (you've already agreed to the amount and terms - the QDRO is a mechanism under federal law to actually get at retirement plan assets). It may be customary for the parties to agree (and at times easier to get a judge to sign it if they do), but it is not required. Second, your ex does NOT need to provide the data indicated in your original post. The plan probably has that info (it really should as a matter of federal law) - and as part of the plan's review of the QDRO, they will determine the amount - if it is based on a formula (like, 50% of the amount of increase between dates of marriage and divorce). If you provide the dates, the plan (through either the recordkeeper, or the Plan Administrator) should be able to figure it out. If they can't (change in employer through a merger or acquisition, or change in recordkeeper), then you can approximate the amount, and have the order changed to a specified dollar amount (rather than a formula). Finally, if your ex is truly necessary and still recalcitrant, the judge can 1) order them to not do anything with the plan assets until the issue is resolved; 2) hold them in contempt; and/or 3) penalize them, but simply awarding you the whole thing (rare, but I've seen it happen). In any event, someone needs to get to the judge to "enforce that which was already ordered/agreed to." If not your attorney, then write a letter to the judge asking that the matter be reopened and reheard (and file a complaint with the local or state bar association responsible for attorney discipline). Domestic relations judges are used to that....

In a word, "no." In two words, "heck No!" The designation of a bene is the right of the participant. In some states, with some conditions, if a power of attorney existed, the POA holder may be able to change the bene (and I should have caveated that enough), BUT - and this is a BIG BUT - every POA ends at the grantor of the POA's death. No exceptions, no way no how. So, EVEN IF mom had a POA, her claiming the ability to change benes after death is null and void. BTW, what flavor of 457 plan is it? My answer doesn't change, but would be nice to know....

Au contraire... You were fed, housed, schooled, and learned valuable life lessons - including analysis and a work ethic -of which all of us here on Benefitslink benefit from your presence daily!

You couldn't pay me enough..... ☺️

There's an extension to that I've used in dealing with clients: "Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered, and attorney's eat bacon." Translation: If you want to do something, pay me now (to fully vet the proposal), or pay me much, much more later (when it blows up).

No, fans hate the Yankees because they have the by far the largest payroll - and flaunt it (and still don't perform as well, dollar for dollar, as many other teams). BTW, I just had a conversation with a coworker - and she proudly showed me some of her Cleveland memorabilia. Worth a pretty penny. 1942 pennant. Bob Feller stuff. Oh, and we could talk about the fand for the Browns (the legendary dog pound) and the Cavs (oh, and LeBron still calls Akron his home and the Cavs his hometown team). Like I said, you'd be hard pressed to find another city with four seasons and the various activities it brings, the National Park, the culture, the coast, and the people....