Compliance

The uncertainty atop the Department of Labor is especially relevant amid the financial industry’s response to the controversial retirement security proposal.

A letter, signed by representatives from both sides of the political aisle, argues the proposed DOL rule changes are unnecessary and harmful to middle-to-low-income savers.

The DOL and IRS have both issued updates for the three composite plan types.

The PBGC is accepting nominations until February 16 for a member to represent the general public.

Morningstar argued that the DOL proposal would lower fees for smaller plans, while ACLI argued it would reduce access to annuity products for lower income savers.

The IRS says that the balance and accrual rate for a participant cannot be reduced when adopting a new variable rate.

Health care system 403(b) participant fees alleged to be too high in fiduciary breach case.   

The Department of Labor keeps working to implement provisions of 2022’s SECURE 2.0 Act alongside further rules for retirement and health benefits.  

Group questions authority of Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su to approve any final rulemaking.

Regulator offers clarification on automatic features, start-up credits and Roth employer contributions.

A comparison of the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 provisions taking effect in 2024 and prior law, where applicable, according to Groom Law Group, Chartered. 

The amendments keep pre-approved plans in compliance with changes to tax law.

The original rule, had it not been vacated by a federal court, would have significantly relaxed the parameters for creating an association health plan.

According to the recordkeeping giant, the proposal would reduce plan and participant access to sales conversations and recordkeeping services.

The insurance industry and consumer advocates have taken polar opposite views on the controversial DOL proposal.

House Republicans identify Net Zero initiatives as potentially collusive and unlawful.

The company's motion defends the plan's actions, stating that the committee followed IRS guidance and outlined its use of forfeitures in plan documents.

After two days of hearings, the fiduciary adviser rule has been strongly criticized by the insurance industry but broadly supported by the adviser industry and consumer advocates.

An audit of the Department of Labor’s program determined it is ineffective.

The start of 2 days of testimony airs opinion from industry groups, advisers and consumer advocates in live webinars.