Leaderboard

No. It would, likely, be easier to continue the SIMPLE IRA throughout the remainder of 2014 and start the Safe Harbor 401(k) with an effective date of January 1, 2015. Each participant in the SIMPLE IRA will have total control over their individual accounts. So, for 401(k) purposes, don't anticipate a transfer. Obviously, there are limitless sets of circumstances where one thing or another may happen, but this is likely your most streamlined method. Good Luck!

My guess is that the parties' lawyers never told the judge all the facts when they went back with a revised Order. If the judge gets wind of this he/she is liable to smack their heads together a la the 3 Stooges, or worse. I think if you tell the lawyers that the Order is not a good QDRO and if necessary you will write a letter to the judge to explain why that's the case, they will come up with a resolution that does not involve the plan.

Speaking from a recordkeeper perspective, I ask for two things before dividing accounts - a copy of the final court-approved DRO and the Plan Administrator's written approval of it as qualified. I typically work with PAs to help them in their approval/review process and let them know if I see anything that might hold up the division process, and sometimes those situations do require participant input to resolve. Those are only about 10-15% of the DROs I see, though, and the issue is almost always resolved before a PA approves rather than after. From there, I don't require the participant to sign anything to authorize the creation/funding of the alternate payee's account. Their consent to a court order saying "give my ex such-and-such amount" carries way more weight with me than any form I could ask them to sign, and I'd rather not muddy the waters by creating an extra layer of sign-off that a disgruntled ex could use to drag me into a fight I want no part of.

A merger of some or all of the plans is not always necessary to solve coverage. There are options for aggregation of plans, different testing methods, adding people, SLOB rules and other options. If necessary, bill the client to bring in a consulting actuary for suggestions.

along similar lines, Q and A #37 and #39 from the 2012 ASPPA Conference Q: A safe harbor 401(k) plan covers only salaried employees of Company X. The plan passes the ratio test under IRC §410(b). The plan year ends December 31. In June, X decides it would like to open up the 401(k) plan to the hourly paid employees, effective on July 1. Would this amendment be a violation of IRC §401(k)(12)? Proposed Answer No. Although certain amendments to a safe harbor 401(k) plan are not permitted to be made effective on a date other than the first day of the plan year, this is not one of those types of amendments. The amendment solely applies to employees who are not otherwise covered by the plan. The safe harbor rules simply treats these individuals as newly eligible, and the safe harbor notice provided prior to the beginning of the plan year would not have had to be distributed to these employees before July 1. IRS Response: The IRS agrees with the proposed answer as long as there is no effect on the already-eligible employees. ............. Q: A safe harbor 401(k) plan fails the §410(b) coverage with respect to its profit sharing plan component. Within 9-1/2 months after the close of the plan year, the employer adopts a corrective amendment, pursuant to Treas. Reg. §1.401(a)(4)-11(g). Does this amendment cause the 401(k) component to lose its safe harbor for the plan year in which the corrective amendment is adopted? Proposed Answer: No. Regardless of the position taken by the IRS with respect to amendments made to a safe harbor 401(k) plan, an implied exception exists for any amendments that are necessary to correct a violation of the nondiscrimination testing rules, which is a fundamental requirement for a qualified plan. IRS Response :The IRS agrees with the proposed answer