Leaderboard

Unusual but don't see where it would be discriminatory. I have seen plans that limit hardships to no more than 1 per calendar year but never seen one that puts a life time cap on it. I would think the biggest issue might be tracking such a cap, especially over time if the plan moves through multiple record keepers and you could easily inadvertantly fail to follow the terms of the plan by accidentially granting a 3rd hardship.

You need to speak to the court clerk about what is necessary to submit for consideration and about the schedule. These matters are affected by local rules and procedures and how busy the court is. I expect that one of the things that will be needed is a notice to your former spouse that the proposed order has been submitted to the court for approval. He is entitled to object and will have some amount of time to respond. Again, how that is handled and how much time involved is a matter of local court rules and procedures. Navigating the last part is a bit intimidating because it seems strange and overwhelming in detail, but usually the court clerks are helpful in guiding you in what you need to do. In California, they have prescribed forms for just about everything, and you do not need the joinder package. You are beyond that stage in the process. Just tell the clerk that you have a proposed QDRO and the plan has reviewed it. I really hate this terminology, but sometimes it is best understood if you say the plan has "pre-approved" the proposed form of order.

Over 100 on the first day of the plan year? Yes. 80-120 rule would not apply since the plan was never eligible to file a small plan filer.

No, the plan is only obligated to comply with a court order that divides the pension AND that meets the plan's rules. There is no way to determine if it is worth your while to pursue this unless you know the value of the pension that you then can assess against your circumstances. I suggest you get an attorney to pursue this, at least up to the point of discovery the amount involved.

The issue you are describing is the exact reason the government created the look back measurement method. If an employer elects to use the monthly measurement method and an employee accumulates 130 or more hours of service in a month, the employee will be counted as a full-time employee for that month and typically need to be offered coverage or the employer will risk paying a section 4980H penalty. An employer is only considered to have offered coverage to an employee if the employee was eligible to participate in coverage for each day of the calendar month. Please note this does not account for the first three calendar month limited non-assessment period an employer using the monthly measurement method may be able to utilize one time per employment period for each employee. In your example the question as to whether the employee needs to be offered coverage in July is solely based on the number of hours the employee accumulated in July and the employer will not know that until July 31. Similarly, the question as to whether the employee needs to be offered coverage in August is solely based on the number of hours the employee accumulated in August. If an employer is going to have employees with hours of service that fluctuate from month to month it has to adopt a look back measurement method policy or it is going to be at risk of a section 4980H penalty. Don’t take this the wrong way but I would highly recommend tracking down somebody that can assist you with this process as we are 18 months into the ACA having an active 4980H provision and you seem to be struggling to apply the basic rules for the 4980H penalty. While it will be difficult if not impossible to correct any errors you have made in the past that may lead to a section 4980H penalty, you can correctly apply the law moving forward. Email me if you want additional guidance rmoulder@healthcare-attorneys.com. Ryan

There is another thread discussing this issue and I have tried since the beginning of June to try to get somebody at the IRS to discuss this issue without much success. However, I believe you are mistaken on how the IRS is verifying TINs for electronic submissions. Please refer to page 17 of publication 1586 on how TINs are verified. For example, my name is Ryan Patrick Moulder. The only thing the IRS system would be looking at is "MOUL" and then verifying if my SSN was listed in the TINs for the "MOUL" combination. Theoretically, my brother's employer could list his name which would be searched as "MOUL" with my SSN and no error message would be reported because my SSN would be included in the SSN subset of numbers for "MOUL". I am working on another article on the issue because I have learned a lot about the issue since my last article on the subject earlier this month. http://www.healthcare-attorneys.com/dont-accept-accepted-with-errors-how-to-handle-incorrect-tins/ I will be sure to share it once it is complete as I think a lot of people are struggling with this issue. I hope this helps.

So all the books would be considered an Andy WarHaul?