Who is NOT a covered service provider?

[Peter Gulia]

Looking at the new "compensation disclosure" rule and considering its definitions that provide many ways that one can be treated as a covered service provider, I'm wondering whether much of anybody is not so covered. Thinking about the usual players that serve a 401(k)-style retirement plan, is there anyone that (leaving aside the possibility of compensation less than $1,000) is NOT a covered service provider?

[Peter Gulia]

What about an insurance agency that provides no service other than persuading a retirement plan to buy a group variable annuity contract; covered or not?

[Belgarath]

As to your first post, what about, for example, a TPA who is paid under contract by the EMPLOYER, and not the plan? As to the second post, this gets more gray, IMHO. It seems likely that the intent of the DOL is to pull in the person or entity who makes the sale, under paragraph ©(1)(iii)(A), but I haven't yet come to grips with the shadings for many of the various scenarios that one can envision in all this crapola.

[Peter Gulia]

Belgarath, thank you for suggesting the idea of a TPA or recordkeeper paid by the plan's sponsor, rather than directly or indirectly from the plan's assets. It's been so long since I've seen that arrangement that I had simply forgotten about it.

On my hypo, an insurance agency might escape ©(1)(iii)(A)(1) if it is careful enough to avoid becoming a fiduciary, but might be covered under ©(1)(iii)© if its selling is treated as an insurance service. Neither that bit nor the lead-in says that a service is limited to a service provided to the plan or its fiduciary. Arguably, a service provided only to the insurance company might nonetheless be a covered service.