What’s the most used and least understood/appreciated acronym in the retirement plan industry?
Well, for my money, it’s “TPA”—short for “third-party administrator.” It’s a term that is widely bandied about, but I think misunderstood by many.
The origins are plain enough—“administrator” in the sense that a TPA deals with plan administration process and issues. The issues and process, it bears noting, that ERISA (not to mention the IRS and DOL) presumes are the responsibility of the plan fiduciary. We’re talking about things like ensuring that the terms of the plan document are adhered to, that non-discrimination tests are properly applied, and that contributions are timely deposited.
Where things seem to get confused is the “third party” reference. At
its simplest, it’s merely an acknowledgement that the entity performing
those vital plan administration functions is someone other than the
entity responsible under the law. They are, quite simply, a party
external to that legal circle. They are legally an extension of the plan
sponsor/administrator, and though it’s hard to imagine it these days,
it harkens back to a time when the plan sponsor/employer actually did
all that work in-house, often on 12-column pads and calculators.
Over time the role of TPA has been diminished in the eyes of many. Sure, they deal with a lot of technical “minutiae”—we’re talking deep in the “weeds” here. The classic reference is you ask what time it is, and they (some, anyway) first want to explain to you how a watch is made. That said, the role of plan administrator—perhaps a better label would be compliance administrator—is essential—critical—to the smooth, effective and efficient running of a plan—and on aspects that, odds are, your recordkeeper (another critical role, but one often focused on other things) isn’t always.
Here’s a partial list—bearing in mind that every plan has to do these things, ask yourself—and your plan sponsor clients—who is making sure that:
- All eligible workers are included in the plan—as required by law—and ineligible workers are not unduly credited with benefits?
- Compensation used as the basis for contributions and/or eligibility is accurate, in accordance with ERISA and IRS limits, both with regard to amount (how much) and individuals (who)?
- The plan’s allocation of benefits meets legal requirements and the correct individuals receive the correct amount(s), thus preventing the need for corrective measures and penalties?
- The amount(s) allocated to individual participant accounts match the actual dollars deposited into the plan/trust. Additionally, to ensure that contribution deposits are made to the plan/trust in accordance with legal requirements, forestalling legal fines and penalties?
- The appropriate plan notices are timely delivered to the applicable individuals in accordance with legal requirements, providing them with important plan information and instructions (and preventing the application of penalties for failing to do so)?
- Employees are properly categorized as to their status as highly compensated employees (HCEs), key employees (for top-heavy testing) and spousal/familial relationships so that the allocation of benefits and eligibility is appropriate and consistent with legal requirements?
- The tax filings related to the plan (Form 5500, 8955, 5330, etc.) are filed accurately and on time in order to comply with the legal requirements regarding the plan, and thus avoid fines and penalties?
- The amounts distributed as loans or distributions are consistent with the vesting schedule of the plan, in accordance with plan parameters and legal limits—and that the needed authorizations are obtained?
And perhaps most critically, who is there to help ensure that problems with regard to plan operation—perhaps relating to any/all of the items above—are promptly and accurately corrected in accordance with government platforms and processes to minimize the pain, time—and financial penalties—involved?
These are questions to which prudent fiduciaries—and those who support them—should know the answer(s).
Trust me—the IRS and DOL expect that you do—and ERISA expects nothing less.
- Nevin E. Adams, JD
No comments:
Post a Comment