Leaderboard

Did you make it clear that if you documented that it failed to meet the requirements for a valid QDRO under that plan, then not even the issuing court can make you follow it? The plan will honor a valid DRO but the plan administrator has the unilateral authority to reject one that it considers invalid or unworkable.

BG, *you* were clear, but there are others that are seemingly reinforcing the position that something doesn't satisfy 414(p) so my question is to everybody, not just you.

Not a lawyer and all, if you don't consider the DRO to be valid or able to be administered (something that cannot be administered can't be a QDRO, can it?), reject it. If summoned to court, stand tall and (with a lawyer at your side) assert that under the law, only the plan administrator can qualify a domestic relations order and that you have determined that as it stands it is not acceptable. Not being familiar with the plan or the actual language of the DRO, I cannot actually judge whether it is something that can be treated as qualified. My comments have been predicated on the assumption that the DRO has fatal flaws and that the grounds for rejection would be acceptable to a knowledgeable judge or legal expert.

"I may not be a lawyer but I am assisting the Plan Administrator in this matter. If I advise the Plan Administrator to reject the DRO then, at the least, you will most likely need to file a formal claim for reconsideration. Hence, it is in your client's best interest for you to ratchet down the rhetoric and help me help your client."

Carol, does this depend on the context? That is, if you are deciding whether to do some type of "disclosure", is it appropriate to err on the side of caution?

First things first....read the plan document. Some prototype and preapproved documents have language pertaining to ERISA accounts. If the document is silent regarding these types of accounts, look through the definitions for the definition of earnings. The rev share could fall into that definition and then they would be required to be allocated as earnings. If the document is completely silent, then the allocation becomes fiduciary discretion. Most would use prorata allocation. If these assets are not allocated in accordance with the plan document, then you would be cited for at least 404(a)(1)(D), failure to follow plan documents. The way that DOL looks at these types of accounts, which they definitely do, is that they should be allocated in accordance with the plan document, or alternatively, at fiduciary discretion by the end of each plan year. Plans cannot have "slush funds" or accounts that accumulate for the use of plan expenses year after year. They view this as a benefit to the employer, since the employer may have to pay the expenses that are not funded. (Be sure to check the plan document for restrictions on the payment of expenses as well)

I use FTW for documents, 5500/1099, and admin. I used to use Relius for everything. To me it comes down to two things, cost and need. On cost, FTW wins hands down. Do you need a lot of flexibility? Relius, while sometimes tedious to work with because of all the settings and options, is a lot more detailed than FTW (and any other system I have looked at). You have to know the system pretty well to use all the bells and whistles, but if you do, you can make it do pretty much anything you want. At least this was my experience 5+ years ago. I am happy with FTW. It does what I need it to do 99% of the time. The other 1% can be a pain and requires some creativity, but so far I haven't come across a problem I couldn't solve. Since FTW is less detailed/quirky, it is also easier to learn and use on the more basic and moderate levels. The one thing I really miss is being able to make the reports just the way I want them, like you can with Relius. With FTW you are pretty much stuck with their formatting options (although they are working on giving us more options to customize). If you really need to change the look of the reports, you can customize it on the user end in Word, Excel or Acrobat, but you need to be creative and it helps if you have a good understanding of macros.

Switched from Relius to FTW last year and haven't looked back.

I use Datair now, but used Relius on a prior job. I find Datair to be far more "quirky" than Relius. Although that may be due to better training that I received on Relius.

We were a TSM user and, while we ultimately chose to outsource, we did look at Relius. Then I changed jobs (due to the outsourcing decision) and now I'm at a firm that uses Relius. I have to say I don't like it. It's quirky.

I have, in the past, when rejecting a QDRO, gave specific suggestions on how to change the language so that it conformed to the document and the plan's QDRO procedures. It should be easy enough to do w/r/t to distribution options and the date of the split. That's not to say it's your responsibility to do so.

We use Datair for our valuation system and are very happy with it. Most of our plans are small, under 100 participants. We administer DB, DC, 401(k) and ESOP plans. Like you, we use FT Williams for 5500 and documents. Mike

Do you want to distribute the assets before you receive the IRS determination letter?