benefitz

I was under the impression that the issue with employer-directed transfers of plan assets from one platform/vendor to another has to do with the terms of the individual annuity contracts held under the plan. Because those contracts are between the participant and the vendor and not the plan and the vendor, it is the participant who has the power to direct/approve a transfer to another vendor and not the employer/plan. In other words, ERISA-covered status is irrelevant - the contract terms are what matters. Isn't that why 403(b) plans are so complicated to administer and record keep? There's more than one vendor and many different investment options because the plan sponsors have to retain the old vendors/investment options for the participants who don't sign off on the transfer of their individual annuity contracts when the plan sponsor moves to a new vendor.

Has anyone heard whether TIAA-CREF has received its pre-approved opinion letters from the IRS yet?

The IRS list of providers of pre-approved 403(b) plans has been updated, but some still show "not issued yet" - including most of the TIAA-CREF documents (the IRS list shows 6 out of 7 not issued yet). Does anyone know when the rest of the letters are expected to be issued? (Or has the IRS simply not updated its list yet? (The report has a 5/28/2017 run date.)) Also, does anyone know which TIAA-CREF document is the one shown on the list as having received its letter? https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/preapproved_403b_plans_list.pdf

The election procedure for qualified plans requires attaching a statement to a determination letter application or a Form 5500. Neither would be filed by a nonelecting 403(b) church plan, but would it make sense to file an initial Form 5500 to attach the election?

How exactly does a church maintaining a non-ERISA 403(b) plan elect to be subject to ERISA? The procedure under IRC 410(d) only applies to qualified plans?

My question is whether a financial institution can require the opening of an estate when it is not required in the state. The details of the scenario are just background. In reply to My 2 cents: 1. The check won't be cashed. It will be deposited to the participant's bank account just like the check for the original lump sum distribution. The participant's bank can accept for deposit into the participant's bank account checks made out to the deceased participant. 2. Not in this situation. The participant elected a lump sum distribution and the distribution election forms specifically cover the trailing distribution. 3. No. The distribution election is not something that would only apply to "the kind of people" who would have an estate. (not sure what is meant by that?) This plan makes trailing distributions all the time because of the distribution timing and the contribution timing. That's why the election forms cover it.

No, the distribution is payable to the participant because it is a trailing distribution that is already subject to the distribution election the participant made before he died. The payment is not made to the participant's beneficiary. Not sure why the financial institution is requiring the opening of an estate when it is not required in the participant's state of residence and the trailing distribution relates to a distribution the participant elected before death and is payable to the participant, not the beneficiary.

We have a terminated participant who recently received a lump sum distribution of his entire account balance who now has a trailing distribution of earnings. We just found out the participant passed away unexpectedly. The financial institution is requiring the name of the participant's estate and the tax ID number for the estate before it will process the trailing distribution. The participant's relatives say they will not be opening a formal estate because it is not required in the participant's state. Can't the financial institution issue the trailing distribution to the participant just like the original distribution? Can the financial institution really require the opening of an estate just for purposes of making the trailing distribution?

Can forfeitures be used to fund the earnings adjustment when the incorrect vesting schedule is applied to a participant and the forfeitures + earnings need to be restored to that participant? Or must the employer make a contribution to the plan to pay for the earnings adjustment?

Company did not sign PPA restatement of prototype adoption agreement by 4/30/2016. Submitting VCP application to IRS, but there is no check box on Schedule 2 (Form 14568-B) for a missed PPA restatement for a prototype plan. Do you just check the "Other" box? If yes, what is the formal description of the "late amender failure" that has to be specified?

Effen, thank you. I am not referring to the suspension of benefits notice. I am talking about the notice the plan has to provide to a participant 30 to 180 days prior to the participant's annuity starting date. The 417 regulations detail the requirements to provide a RASD when a participant does not get the required notice before his ASD, but the regulations also say that a plan is not required to provide a RASD, so I am asking about the procedure in a scenario when a plan does not have RASDs and it does not provide the required notice before the ASD for a participant who has attained NRA. I think you are saying that in that scenario, the plan has to actuarially adjust the participant's benefit because the actual annuity starting date is after the original ASD?

Apologies if this has been asked/answered before, but I did not see this specific question addressed on this message board when I searched: The 417 regulations state that a defined benefit plan is not required to offer retroactive annuity starting dates (RASDs). If a plan does not offer RASDs, how is the benefit calculated when a terminated participant who has attained normal retirement age does not receive the QJSA explanation prior to his annuity starting date? Is it calculated on the basis of the prospective annuity starting date, with no makeup payments for the time period between the original annuity starting date and the actual annuity starting date? What if the plan never provides the QJSA explanation? Since the terminated participant has attained normal retirement age, and the 417 regulations say that consent is not required when a benefit is no longer immediately distributable (which occurs after the later of NRA or age 62), then does the plan have to provide the QJSA explanation? Or can it commence a QJSA distribution - calculated as of a prospective starting date - to the participant without the QJSA explanation and without consent?

hi! I have a 403(b) plan that requires employees to make an irrevocable election to contribute to the plan as a condition of employment, so that means their contributions do not count towards the $18,000 limit on deferrals - but are the contributions still counted towards the $53,000 limit on annual additions? ~ thanks!