"I've got a MEP that allows for self-certified hardships. A hardship request will go from the participant to the recordkeeper to us (TPA) to the MEP sponsor and then back to the recordkeeper for processing. Fairly standard. Found out today that the MEP sponsor will reach out to the adopting employer to say something like 'hey, Participant is looking to take a hardship, maybe you want to talk to them about it', and sometimes they do and they arrange for a bonus or company loan so that the participant doesn't have to reduce their plan balance. I don't think I like this. I don't like that it introduces a possible level of unfairness (does every participant get spoken to?), maybe it blurs the line of investing advice ('don't take a taxable distribution, do this instead'), and maybe even some kind of privacy issue (though I'd think a participant should expect that they are requesting a hardship is pertinent plan administration information). But I can't say for sure if this is actually black-and-white wrong, or if it just feels icky. Thoughts?"

[Sponsored]

Sound impossible to automate your entire year-end processes while you keep 100% control? From census import, validations, compliance testing to report generation & exception handling. Consistent accurate results. No install, Web Access. See for yourself! 

"DB plan covers husband and wife only. Biz is owned by husband but he retires/terminates and wife continues to to run the biz. Does 110% rule apply to pay out the husband?"

"Have a scenario where a county employed judge has a private business. As a county employee she has a government provided pension plan. Her private company is very profitable and will be for at least another 8-10 years. Can her private company (an S-corp) sponsor a defined benefit plan for her as the only employee? Would her government provided pension plan benefits she accrued factor into what could be done with the private plan?"

"Plan has never contained after-tax not employer match provisions. Plan is adding an after-tax provision. Plan may add a discretionary match, but it won't be used in 2025. I think plan should still be able to use prior year testing and assume an NHCE rate of 3%. Is that correct? My only pause is that there won't actually be a match in 2025, just the after-tax."

"Have a Cash Balance Plan terminating, projected to have small amount of excess assets at time of distribution (no 415 issues, etc.). The plan document just specifies that excess assets will be distributed 'in a nondiscriminatory manner'. In this situation, the Plan only covers the 100% Owner and his son, so both are HCEs and Key Employees. Typically have either allocated on the basis for a regular DB Plan based on present value of 1% of Average Salary times years of participation (maximum 5); in Cash Balance scenario have done same manner where say take 1% of compensation in last 5 years (so hypothetical additional Cash Balance) and allocated on that basis. However, the language 'in a nondiscriminatory manner' where only dealing with HCEs looks like we could do anything we wanted and comply, so say ALL excess assets could go the Owner, or ALL to the son, or however the client wanted to apportion. Any thoughts?"