Leaderboard

Is it possible what they did is legal? Maybe. It would depend on the facts. The facts would have to be rather narrow. I am thinking it might be possible if there is an ESOP loan to amend the plan to delay until the loan is paid off. But normally you would see that be prospective not retroactive. It would be nice if they were more transparent. I am one of the people on this board that tells people to go to the DOL only after all other attempts to get a resolution have been made. The DOL can be a rather blunt instrument and they can cause a struggling company more problems then it is worth. It can cost $10,000s in legal fees to defend yourself from the DOL and if this company is struggling that is just less money to fund your benefit payment. I would see if you can get an appointment with someone who is willing to tell you on what basis they think they can delay. Remember it is a lot of money and I am not trying to minimize your feeling that way but the goal is to get your money not punish the company. Every now and then people get on this board looking for advice and they have reached the mad point and they seem more interested in emotional satisfaction then getting their money. So try and talk to them and see if you can get an idea what conditions have to be true for the delay to be lifted.

Employer contributions are considered as part of an employee's total compensation package all the time especially in medical practices. I can't comment on the specific language used in the agreement. It's possible that some attorney's know how to draft the agreement and some do not. But if you have any non-owner physicians working for one of your clients, something like this is in their agreement.

Q1: 2016. Q2: No.

If the terms of the plan (which include the loan policy) and the terms of the loan allow for the participant to cease payroll deduction and cause the loan to default, the fiduciary will have breached its duty with respect to issuance of the loan. A loan cannot be made without a reasonable expectation that it will be repaid. A payroll deduction arrangement is a good mechanism to assure repayment, but not if it allows the borrower to elect to render this he arrangement ineffective. If there is no impediment to a borrower's discretion to repay, there is no commercially reasonable expectation of repayment. Lenders are not supposed to be a trusting lot.

Well I know our industry loves acronyms and that's now one of my favorites. So am I initiated into the club?

:) Yeah, ETA didn't invent RTFD. I'm sure we all heard it for the first time when we went into the office of the resident "guru" and asked a silly question.

From the facts in the OP, it does not appear that a the plan has received a QDRO. And a divorce does not necessarily mean there will be a QDRO at all. Without a QDRO the PA does not owe a duty to a current participant's soon to be ex-spouse.

It appears that the plan sponsor company has financial difficulties that are serious enough to make some desperate moves, and then some. You are probably entitled at least to an installment, but the company feels like it cannot pay without jeopardiing the business. This is a dilemma. If you press for payment, the company could slip into bankruptcy and you would get nothing, ever. But that could happen whether or not you press. You could go to the Department of Labor for assistance. The DOL is interested in ESOPs that do not pay on time, but the DOL has no solution to the dilemma of financial crisis and can just as well sink the ship by intervening. If I knew that the company were acting in desperate good faith, I would sit tight and hope against hope that the fortunes turn and eventually something is paid. But there is no way to adequately assess if the company is doing the best it can.

No permission needed. The statement is in the public domain.

Read The Fantastic Document? Sure :-)

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth... Oh, my apologies; that is for bible study. Plans must be operated pursuant to their 'written documents'. That's Section 401(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code; which is like Chapter 1, Verse 1 of everything we know. I cannot even fathom a situation where verbal communication would supersede the written language in the plan. I think that was Kevin C's point. Documents are, generally, written to address the time frame for the calculation while leaving the deposit timing open. For instance, a match this is calculated using compensation and deferrals during a payroll period is just that; a calculation that is performed for a certain time frame. It says nothing about the deposit timing; or that you have until the tax filing deadline for a deduction. Now, if it is a Safe Harbor Match, then there are some deposit timing issues for the match that is done more frequently than the plan year. (like end of the following quarter). I say this to reemphasize what many of us have been saying for the longest.... RTFD. I'm not saying it with any emotion, but it's just that the answers are there over 99% of the time. Now, there are instances where language in the plan may be tricky (e.g. timing of calculation vs. timing of deposits), but we can work through that. We must first agree, however, that only one thing trumps the plan document; and that's the Treasury Regulations; not the spoken words of an owner. Good Luck!

Deferral contributions are technically deemed to be made by the employer and the self employed are not subject to DOL regulations. Therefore this is subject to section 404. 404(a)(6) Time when contributions deemed made For purposes of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), a taxpayer shall be deemed to have made a payment on the last day of the preceding taxable year if the payment is on account of such taxable year and is made not later than the time prescribed by law for filing the return for such taxable year (including extensions thereof). Note: This is tax filing deadline, not when you file.

So, your advice to the CEO would be to go ahead and tell your people anything you wish to tell them because you won't have to stand behind it?