Leaderboard

GASP! Not...need....to....see..."Retirement...Plans"... - the answers to the meaning of life, the universe, everything? It doesn't seem possible. IS there anything else? Such a heretical act of heinousness is unparalleled in modern history. Dave would get lonesome without us, and we can't have that.

BenefitsLink has compiled a handy web page with hypertext links to Form 5500 (and its variants) and Schedules, including Instructions, back to the first year the form was required by ERISA. http://benefitslink.com/src/misc/form-5500-for-previous-years.html Sometimes it's necessary to refile an earlier year's form, so the web page might be a convenient way to pull up the needed PDF documents, and to see which schedules were required for a particular year. If you see any opportunities for improvements to the page, please let me know. Thanks!

Agreed. The Trust for the Plan is responsible for withholding taxes AND sending them in to the government, and both should be an integral aspect of the Trust's procedures.

Sounds wrong to me! In a DB plan termination, amounts that are paid as lump sums are subject to the 20% withholding and amounts that are directly rolled over (or annuity purchases) are not. If someone splits the distribution between a lump sum payment and an amount rolled over, then only the amount not being rolled over would be subject to the mandatory withholding. The plan should have held back 20% of the amount not being rolled over and sent the remainder to the participant and the withheld amount to the government. If it is to be sent in from the proceeds by the recipient, it isn't "withholding", is it? It makes me wonder if that was a real CPA, or someone who plays one on TV.

Not sure why you care. Is your task is to review the draft DRO? If so, see if you can reasonably interpret it in light of the plan provisions, and advise whether it should be "qualified". If there are ambiguities, either (a) describe them and reject the draft, or (b) describe what reasonable interpretation/solution you suggest (without re-writing the DRO).

You need a new policy concerning discovery of a participant divorce. The law is quite clear about requirements and limitations relating to divorce proceedings and documents. For the most part, the plan cannot interfere with participant rights and privileges. The plan is required to act in a specified manner on receipt of a domestic relations order and otherwise is inviting trouble by getting involved.

Would the OP lead to a deemed CODA and thus $20,000 in deferrals?

Technically, the Company is not responsible for submitting the withholding taxes, the Trust for the Plan is responsible.

the old forms bring back memories... in 1992 Had a plan by chance named Advanced Women .... and appropriately by chance it turned out the Codes we had to fill in were C Participant Directed H Top Heavy I Permitted Disparity K Prototype

If payroll can be re-run why not do it? I don't even see it as a plan issue.

In my mind, contributions (from whatever source) between 12/1/05 and 9/1/16 are part of the benefit accrued - and therefore the difference between ending and starting date (presumably the dates of marriage) is the start. Gains and losses after the end date are another issue....

All interesting responses and based on my review and discussions there is a lot of disagreement. I agree that this could be an issue with plan operation. Our policy in the past has been once the Plan Sponsor becomes aware of a divorce proceeding any unusual transaction needs to be scrutinized and in some cases have required the participant to obtain approval of loans, distributions, etc. I understand that this goes beyond the rules but has avoided issues down the road. Thanks to all.

If you do not like your fiduciary breach up front, you get another chance when the fiduciary is faced with a decision about whether/how to collect the overdue payments. The fiduciary cannot ignore management of plan assets and must take reasonable steps to maintain plan assets. If the participant has an income, it is not an automatic decision that it is not worthwhile to pursue collection.

Pardon the obvious question - but if your family owns that much of the bank, why aren't you on the Board? Also, does the ESOP allow for distributions in the form of stock (rather than cash)? If so then I don't see why that wouldn't work - several specialized IRA custodians will accept non publicly traded stock.