Search the Community

ERISA § 104(b)(1) calls for a summary of a new or changed plan provision “not later than 210 days after the end of the plan year in which the change is adopted[.]” (Quotations from the statute and rule are in a recent BenefitsLink discussion. https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/66810-rmd-2020-waiver-and-sample-amendment/&tab=comments#comment-308944) For some provisions, taking that long time (and not communicating sooner) could result in describing a provision after every participant no longer has any decision she could make. Just to pick one example, if in March 2020 a retirement plan’s sponsor adopted a provision for a coronavirus-related distribution, a summary of material modifications furnished in July 2021 might describe a provision that expired a half-year ago. BenefitsLink mavens, what do you think: Should an SPD or SMM describe a provision even if the description is no more than history? Or is it better to describe the changed (and expired) provision, even if including the description confuses or otherwise burdens a reader? For this question, assume the plan’s sponsor/administrator has yet done nothing to communicate the new or changed (and now expired) provision.