"In the event that a 'Primary beneficiary' of a ERISA -covered Defined Benefit Plan is determined to be invalid, what determines who the 'Successor/New Primary Beneficiary' will be? In this particular instance, in addition to a 'Primary beneficiary', the completed form indicated a 'Contingent Beneficiary'. It should be noted that the 'Plan Documents' (i.e. Summary Plan Description SPD) states, specifically, that the 'Contingent Beneficiary' shall become the new 'Primary Beneficiary' in the event the 'Primary Beneficiary' is deceased; the document gives no other instance wherein the 'Contingent Beneficiary' shall become the new 'Primary Beneficiary'. The Plan documents ALSO states, specifically, that in the event that there is no VALID (emphasis mine) 'Primary Beneficiary' the benefits shall be paid to the deceased plan participant's Estate. The question is: Do the 'Plan Documents' determine who is the new 'Primary Beneficiary' or some other ruling authority? Based upon the plan document wording specifically addressing the event of an 'invalid Primary Beneficiary', would not the correct new 'Primary Beneficiary' be the deceased plan participants Estate per the wording in the SPD?"

[Sponsored]

Join WEB Network's webinar on June 20: panelists J. Mark Iwry, Israel Goldowitz, Carol Buckmann, and Jeff Mamorsky will discuss why and how ERISA was adopted, the growth of employee protections over the years, and how ERISA might be further expanded.

"Can an ex-spouse take a hardship withdrawal to buy out her ex-husband's share of their primary residence home?"

"The trustee wants to invest a portion of the plan assets into the purchase a home for himself, keeping it as a plan investment. In relatively short time he will then sell the house and put whatever earnings there are back into the plan to be shared by all participants. I do not deal with real estate in plans enough but this doesn't sound right. Is this a PT? Assuming the plan permits real estate investments and he has it independently valued annually, can he really his own house and keep it as an asset in the plan?"

"We have a client where we handle their 401(k). They also have an ESOP, which we don't handle. A law firm handles (or DID handle) the ESOP/document. Short version -- the business has been sold, and both plans need to be terminated. The law firm who handled the ESOP document has 'resigned' from the ESOP document business. Now, we can't (or won't) amend the ESOP document. But I'm just curious -- is a current ESOP termination amendment that includes SECURE/2./CARES amendment(s) similar to what is required for a 401(k) required?"

"The 2020 [DOL] 'Notice and Access' safe harbor may be used to deliver ERISA notices electronically to plan participants. The Notice and Access safe harbor very generally requires an initial paper notice, followed by a notice of internet availability, and then notices may be posted to a website. This method is not overtly a safe harbor for delivering notices required under the IRS Code, like 401(k) safe harbor notices. IRS electronic delivery safe harbors are outlined in Treas. Reg. Section 1.401(a)-21. The two methods outlined are:

• Consumer consent -- basically similar to the 'Affirmative Consent' DOL safe harbor, or
• Effective availability -- participants must have effective ability to access the notice

My questions are:

• Are other providers who are using the DOL Notice and Access approach to delivering ERISA notices assuming this approach also satisfies the IRS Effective Availability safe harbor for delivery of IRS notices? More specifically, are you using the DOL Notice and Access delivery method to deliver your 401(k) safe harbor notices?
• Does anyone feel like the DOL Notice and Access safe harbor might not satisfy the IRS electronic delivery requirements?'