"An annual compliance review was completed by a TPA and they provided a profit sharing calculation for an ineligible participant (who was also terminated). The plan sponsor funded the contribution to said participant and triggered a residual distribution. The transaction was sent to the TPA for review and was approved, even though the participant [1] Should not have been eligible to receive a contribution and [2] Should not have been allowed to take a distribution of these funds. The plan sponsor has decided that it's going to be less of a hassle for them to allow this individual to keep the funds as a 'bonus' (for a multitude of reasons that don't need to be explained here). The individual is not an HCE but I still have concerns. In my opinion, the plan would still need to be made whole because the assets that went into the plan never should have been segregated from the plan and now, the sponsor is looking at having to fund double the original amount to make the plan whole. Here is my question: considering that the TPA provided an online approval of the distribution (to my knowledge, the sponsor was not prompted to provide an online approval), at which point could a TPA be held responsible for a loss like this? Ultimately, I know that the sponsor of the plan is responsible for operating the plan but we are in this business because we are the subject expert matters and plan sponsors should be able to rely on their third party providers to help them avoid costly mistakes like this, especially when the third party overlooks important details such as participant eligibility when providing profit sharing calculations."

"An over age 21 employee is hired 3/1/23 and works between 501-999 hours in the 12 months after her initial date of hire. She then works between 501-999 in calendar year 2024. Lets say she reached 501 hours on June 1, 2024. Am I correct then that her LTPT plan entry date is 1/1/25 and not 12/1/24 (6 months later) since not only is the LTPT eligibility period 12 months but if she goes over 1000 hours later in 2024, she would be eligible to enter as a 'regular' participant on 1/1/25 and would not classify as a LTPT?"

"I have a 403(b) plan funded exclusively by participant contributions. Under universal availability, EVERYONE is eligible but, since there is no match and there is a separate employer-funded plan, we have a large number of eligible employees who elect not to contribute. We report them as participants on the 5500 but without balances. We are a large plan and there is no question that we need an annual audit. New for the 2023 forms, the audit requirement depends on the number of participants with account balances.  ... But the definition of Active Participant remains the same as previous years ... So as long as someone is eligible to contribute we count them in this section, whether they contribute or not--right?"

"Does anyone have experience drafting Pension Order for Washington Metro Area Transit Authority Plans (WMATA)?"

"i recently left my job, and i had around $4000 on my 401k account and i also have a loan for $500 that has not being paid yet, will i be able to cash out my 401k after a month?"

"Employer A adopts a plan, effective 1/1/2023. Employer B's employees are allowed to participate in employer A's plan. Here's the problem. The owners of A also have ownership in B, but NOT sufficient to constitute a Controlled Group. Nor are the businesses an Affiliated Services Group. And although A's plan provides for Multiple Employer Plan provisions, employer B did NOT sign any type of participation agreement/joinder agreement, etc., as required under the MEP provisions in A's plan. [In a] webcast re IRS Notice 2023-43, this question came up in the context of a CG/ASG, where the related employer did not adopt the plan. The presenters' opinions were that although 2023-43 does not allow self-correction of failure to initially adopt a plan, because the plan had been adopted by the 'employer' under the CG/ASG rules, that this is an operational failure that can be self-corrected. Although it is a 'no harm no foul' type of situation, I feel like extending this treatment to a situation where the employer *(B in this case) is not 'related' under the CG/ASG rules may be stretching the point too far. Curious as to any thoughts you may have?"

"I'm 65. I was offered a lump sum pension payment of $89,000. I understand the amount will be recalculated when the new 417e table is released in June 2024. Should I take the lump sum now or wait till after the new calculations are made in July 2024?"