luissaha

Haha, yes, it is the wild west for sure. I'll complicate it even more. Yes, this is a governmental employer but the trust holding the contributions was established by public sector unions. Thus, there is an argument the trust is governed by ERISA, but it's not clear. I don's t see any legal issues if the public agency were to take contribution "credits" for the overpaid amounts to offset future funding. Thoughts?

Brian, thank you for the response. Yes, the contributions have been deposited into a trust account. I'll check the terms of the HRA plan/trust document and see what they provide on this.

I have a situation where mistaken contributions were made to a retiree-only HRA. I'm familiar with IRS guidance on recovery of mistaken HSA contributions but cannot find anything on mistaken HRA contributions. The custodian of the HRA is claiming the HSA rules apply but I'm wondering if there is any other applicable guidance for mistaken HRA contributions.

Is there any provision in the Internal Revenue Code that prohibits voluntary, after-tax contributions to a DB plan? Put differently, the plan requires mandatory employee contributions based on age of entry. I'm asking if employees could voluntarily contribute additional after-tax amounts to accounts under the plan. Any insight would be appreciated.

Regarding deferrals, does that mean combined deferrals to the 401(k) and 457 (b) plans cannot exceed $20,500 for 2022? I thought an employee could defer $20,500 to each plan for a total of $41,000. The 401(k) is grandfathered, so this is a bit of an odd case. Strange the employer has a 401(k) and 457 plan.

A governmental employer sponsors a 401(a) defined contribution plan, a 401(K) plan, and a 457 (b) plan. For purposes of the annual contribution limits under 415 (c), are the 457 (b) plan contributions treated separately, or are they combined with the 401(k) and 401(a) contributions?

For employees returning from military leave, it's my understanding they have the option to make their employee contributions for time out under USERRA, but are not required to do so. What about the employer's contribution? Does it have to be made if the employee elects not to make his/her contribution?

It is not ERISA-governed because the employer is a governmental agency. It is a stand-alone, retiree-only HRA. There is anti-alienation language in the document, but no citation to any IRC provision. Is the anti-alientation language sufficient to rely upon? A court has ordered the division.

Can assets from an HRA be transferred to a former spouse upon divorce? My inclination is that they can't be, but is there a specific Internal Revenue Code provision I can cite for authority? Any help is appreciated.

Does anyone know how Social Security's Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) would apply to a governmental defined contribution plan? For example, some governmental agencies have done away with db plans as their Social Security replacement plan, and moved new hires into dc plans. Some of these new hires have Social Security earnings from prior jobs and are wondering how or if the WEP would apply to them. I'm not sure how it would work. Does anyone have any insight on this? Any help would be appreciated.

Thank you for your responses. Very helpful!

Cafeteria plan document contains language providing that a participant may modify or revoke an election under a 401(k) plan as allowed under Treas. Reg. section 1.125-4(h). The 401(k) plan document, however, provides for an "irrevocable" election to transfer amounts from the cafeteria plan to the 401(k) plan. As such, we seem to have conflicting language in the plans. My inclination is that the 401(k) plan should be amended to allow for changes to deferrals for the cafeteria plan mid-year. Is there any reason why we should not allow for these mid-year changes? Don't most cafeteria plans allow for mid-year changes to 401(k) elective deferral amounts?

One child is (age 17). Thanks for the responses. They are helpful. I think we may just explain to the employee that the beneficiary designation should not have been accepted because of the language in the policy requiring him to be the beneficiary. We'll ask him to apply for the benefits and see how he reacts.

Is there any legal requirement that an employee must be the beneficiary on a dependent life insurance policy? I see this in many policies and I'm not sure why this is the case. I have a situation where an employee designated his children as beneficiaries on the policy on his spouse's life. The employee made this designation on the dependent life insurance enrollment form provided by the insurer. The insurer did not object to the designation when originally made. Unfortunately, the employee's spouse passed away recently and the insurer is now saying it will not pay the children because the policy language requires the proceeds to be paid to the employee. I think if the insurer accepted the designation, they must pay the designated beneficiaries, even if that conflicts with the terms of the policy. The only reason I can see for not paying the children is if there is some legal prohibition against naming someone other than the employee as a beneficiary on a dependent life policy. Any insight would be appreciated.

An employee requested a hardship distribution to prevent foreclosure on his principal residence. The foreclosure notice is not addressed to the employee, however. It is addressed to the estate of the employee's deceased father, care of the employee's brother. The address of the property is the same address we have on file as the employee's home address. I'm inclined to recommend approval of the hardship request, as this appears to be the employee's principal residence that is in danger of being foreclosed on, but I'm concerned that the property is apparently owned by someone other the employee or his spouse. Any help would be appreciated.