RatherBeGolfing

that pesky "co-fiduciary" thing that people forget when they toss around the idea of 3(16) to "make things easier for the client"

I haven't looked at any recently, might even be as far back as before the last restatement. Several of those documents were specifically written to exclude non-owners (with no option to include). These were your all-in-one fund company plans where everything has to go through that company. They don't have (or didn't have) staff for testing and 5500s (other than EZ) and all that fun stuff we do.

I have seen plenty of those docs. The way they are written they cannot be used when there are other employees. They are usually of the "here is a short adoption agreement, fill it out and keep it with your files" variety.

Fee structure is the least of your worries at this point. Have you looked at what functions you will perform, what your liability is if not performed properly, what additional requirements you will subject yourself to as a co-fiduciary, whether your E&O will cover you at all if you take on fiduciary responsibilities , etc? That is where you need to begin.

I agree.

As a side note, you might as well file. The time it takes to prepare the EZ with instructions on how to file is negligible, and as ESOP Guy explained above, you start the SOL. Also, if you find out down the road that the assets were actually higher, you can just amend and not worry about correcting for not filing in the first place. It happens all the time. The client forgets about an account, or the client forgets to mention that they also had a DB plan with another company, etc. No. Yes. No.

Agree 100%.

Out of curiosity, what authority would the client rely on to force the plan to review a draft DRO? They would have obviously have to determine whether a DRO is qualified or not, but why would they be required to review draft DRO?

Always happy to contribute! I know a lot of organizations are really digging into this one because of the short comment period, so it will be interesting to see what shakes out. 23 days and counting...

I agree, but if you utilize the special consolidation rule you will not be sending out a notice of availability for every notice. You would get annual notice that you can go to this website to view and download XYZ notices. The way I have seen this interpreted, you will not get a notice when each one is updated/posted, you would just get an annual notice that this is where you go to get this group of notices. This will probably get some attention during the comment period though, so who knows if it will stay like this for the final rule. § 2520.104b–31(i) Special rule for consolidation of certain notices of internet availability. Notwithstanding the requirements in paragraphs (d)(4)(ii) and (iii) of this section, an administrator may furnish one notice of internet availability that incorporates or combines the content required by paragraph (d)(3) of this section with respect to one or more of the following covered documents: (1) A summary plan description, as required pursuant to section 104(a) of the Act; (2) A summary of material modification, as required pursuant to section 104(a) of the Act; (3) A summary annual report, as required pursuant to section 104(b)(3) of the Act; (4) An annual funding notice, as required pursuant to section 101(f) of the Act; (5) An investment-related disclosure, as required pursuant to 29 CFR 2550.404a–5(d); (6) A qualified default investment alternative notice, as required pursuant to section 404(c)(5)(B) of the Act; and (7) A pension benefit statement, as required pursuant to section 105(a) of the Act.

Correct. The proposed rule is an additional method for electronic delivery, and does not replace or change current safe harbor [§ 2520.104b–1(c)] The big difference here is that the old safe harbor is opt-in and the new safe harbor is opt-out. If a pdf has malware or a malicious script, does it matter whether it is emailed or downloaded from a website? I don't think so but I'd have to consult our IT folks on that one. The only statement that would be specific to the individual is the benefit statement. Is there a greater risk of it ending up in the wrong hands if you email the statement or upload it in such a way that only the intended participant has access? If you send such emails securely (encrypted emails), the risk should be about the same, but it may be more convenient to upload to a website that the participant can access.

I don't think your solution works. It is fine to reference a notice or document you have already distributed. I do not think the safe harbor notice can include, by reference, something the participants do not already have access to.

https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/comment-on-tax-forms-and-publications This would be the more appropriate forum...

Because that is not the purpose of the form...

That is my understanding. The exception would be a VERY good reason. Opposite of what I have heard. They sure do...

@austin3515 the ask the experts panel agreed with you, as the loan is an investment, you can rebalance. They hedged by added that just because it can be done, it doesnt mean that it should be done. There was also a comment questioning whether you really want to put that kind of language in your plan document, leaving open the question of whether additional language is needed

No Dear, I only catalog your receipts to make sure there are no fraudulent charges.... Surely $350 at hair-salon is a fraudulent charge right?

Great, I'll have to catch that one since this is hot topic for sure.

Is it though? The ERISA bond is there to protect the plan against acts of fraud and dishonesty by people who handle the plan assets or have discretion over plan assets. In this case it sounds like they fell for identity theft by someone outside of the plan, so I don't think the ERISA bond will cover it. This sounds more like a fiduciary liability insurance situation to me. I think there is a cyber security session at ASPPA Annual next week, perhaps I should drag myself in there after all...

Shouldn't be too hard to spot Bart Simpson at the conference... See you there!

My username didn't work but my email address i registered with did. Just in case anyone else has that issue as well. App looks great this year Bill!

100% agree with data collected on your forms. Your forms, your product. Non-original documents provided by the client is a gray area for me, but you are correct that since it is a copy it could be assumed that they have the original so it probably does not rise to the level of "any and all records of the Principal that are necessary for the Principal to comply with federal tax Law". What about this part of the code of conduct: That is where client provided documents (even copies) becomes a gray area for me. I'll return them, for a reasonable fee.

I'll be there as well. You guys put together a great session lineup this year! Lots of new/hot topics on the agenda which is always great to see.

2018 Valuation - You do not have to provide the product of your work for which you have not been compensated. You do have to return client files and information that the client or a third party provided provided to you. Basically, you don't have to hand over the 2018 valuation or your calculations/testing, but you do have to hand over the underlying data you collected from the client or third parties in order to do the 2018 valuation/testing like W-2s, K-1s, financials etc. 2017 Valuation & Plan Document - if the client paid for it, you need to provide it, even if it has already been sent to the client in prior years. You are allowed to charge a reasonable fee for collecting and sending the data though. Nowadays that might be as easy as attaching a couple of PDFs to an email....

Not necessarily. If you just had one or a few denials, yes. If the denial was part of a larger submission done by a service provider, and the service provider had a lot of denials, it can usually be done on the provider level. In some cases they will accept lists or even excel files from the provider to correct multiple incorrect denials. We have done it before and I know some who are doing it now. It is on a case by case basis though.