It has been quite a time the past few weeks, with working through the details of MEP transitions to the 408(b) 2 July 1st effective date. With a little break to come up for air, I’d like to comment on something for post July 1 consideration, the variable non-registered group annuity contract.
This type of
The dust has begun to settle around the DOL’s Advisory Opinion, 2012-4, and a number of different voices have spoken about what the opinion says, and what it doesn’t say. At this point, it may be useful to to put the letter in some context.
The clarity it brings is, in fact, very helpful. What
The DOL’s Advisory Opinion process is a helpful one, as it provides a manner in which to explore and test the development of innovative programs which are necessary for the retirement system to properly adapt and change.
Many of you know of me as being well versed in 403(b) matters; others are familiar with my work in annuities; others still consider my familiarity with MEPS or ERISA broker dealer issues. But the heart and soul of my practice over the past nearly 30 years has really been the fiduciary rules-in particular, the
The DOL, in its final 408(b)-2 regulation, issued relief for 403(b) plans, under which information related to certain contracts would not be subject to the the new fee disclosure rules. Though this was very helpful, it did not specifically address the 404a-5 participant disclosure regulations for the same type of contracts. This raised a
NOTE: I STRONGLY CAUTION READERS THAT THE FOLLOWING IS MERELY A SUGGESTED APPROACH WHICH COULD BE SENSIBLY USED BY THE IRS IF IT WERE TO CHOOSE TO RECOGNIZE THE DSTRIBUTION OF INDIVIDUAL CUSTODIAL ACCOUNTS FROM 403(b)(7) PLANS, AND TO LEAD TO FURTHER DISCUSSION. IT IS NOT REFLECTIVE OF THE IRS’S (NOR, AS FAR AS I
Dave Walters, a partner from Bodman, and I led a rousing discussion on ERISA Accounts at the last meeting of the Great Lakes TEGE Council. It was an eye-opening discussion, with the Council members exploring a number of significant issues which many of us had not previously considered. Not only are there a number of ERISA
I have written often of the large impact of the small, the concept of "minimum necessary change" to accomplish what needs to be done, and have noted a number of regulatory instances where this has been-and not-accomplished.