Kirk Vaughn

@Bri your boss probably meant EBSA, not ERISA. EBSA = Employee Benefits Security Administration (part of the DOL) ERISA = Employee Retirement Income Security Act This is oversimplified, but generally, EBSA enforces ERISA / parts of retirement law contained in 29 USC, and there is a way to report plan officials that misbehave.

Some pre-approved plan documents allow waiver of service requirements for all employees hired before a certain date.

Sounds like the record keeper might need to draft a reasonable cause letter to help the employer avoid some nasty consequences.

There's more to it than LTPT deferrals. There are other administratively burdensome provisions, like requiring Roth catch-up contributions and mandatory automatic enrollment. Additionally, if SECURE 2.0 goes away, 403(b) sponsors don't have to worry about any LTPT rules, not just an alteration of who counts as an LTPT employee, which impacts things like vesting. Also, I could see someone who is facing a very expensive audit cap related to a botched mandatory automatic enrollment using the threat of a lawsuit as leverage when negotiating with the IRS. A medium sized employer could find itself in a situation where the combined cost of correcting MDOs, paying lost earnings, and the fine could exceed the cost of the lawsuit. If multiple employers all facing similar situations were to band together, the cost of the lawsuit could easily be far less than the cost of complying with SECURE 2.0.

Depending on what your loan provisions say, the immediate financial need would be more than just the employee's portion of the bill. If the loan language mirrors the hardship regs, it might also allow include expenses tied to obtaining the care. For example, if the participant incurred some sort of an abnormal childcare expense while they were obtaining the care, if they had to pay for parking while at the provider, etc. all of that could reasonably be construed as necessary for obtaining the care and therefore part of the medical event.

I know this is several years late, but you need to determine if the group is an employer association or an employee organization. To be an employer association, the group needs to have a non-benefit commonality and the individual employers need to have unique employer powers to change the plan document (this can be accomplished by casting votes to elect the trustee). Specifically, look to DOL AO 80-42A and 81-44A. If the employer association is "bona fide" then there is one "employer". If it is not "bona fide" then each plan is likely its own employee welfare benefit plan and obtaining its benefits from a MEWA.

If the DOL no longer required employer associations to be bona fide (AKA have commonality and control over the plan), what entities would qualify as MEWA under the phrase "any other arrangement"? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ People are correct in that the commonality requirement for pensions is not explicitly stated in ERISA. My thought, is congress may have ratified the DOL's position requiring employer associations to possess commonality and control by adopting the 1983 amendment defining a MEWA: Essentially, unless some entities would still be considered to be a non-EWBP MEWA without the commonality and control requirements, then the definition of employer association must require some form of commonality and control, otherwise part of the statute would be superfluous. Thoughts?