Leaderboard

Um, is there a potential incentive behind this "encouragement"? As CuseFan implies, any similar plan provision might be in the best interest of the advisor, not necessarily in the best interest of the participant.

Let's rewind. The contribution was made by the extended tax deadline, and therefore it is deductible and the compensation is reduced and I feel comfortable using the smaller number of $30k as the amount subject to the missed minimum funding deadline. The 5500 should show the unpaid minimum of only $30k so it should be re-filed. The instructions to the SB say to include the payments made by the 8 1/2 months (even though the deduction limit goes to 9 1/2 months). Show the $60k contribution on the 2018 SB. Sorry for all the wrong answers the first time! Did you already file the 5330 for the penalty? I assume you did. That likely needs amending also.

And it was me! Yeah, I misread the deduction issue.

One of the leading experts in QDRO matters, Marshal Willick, practices in Las Vegas. Maybe he will take a look at your case without charging you. You can find him at https://www.willicklawgroup.com/marshal-s-willick-esq/ Mention my name. The following may help. I am attaching a Memo I prepared for the Bar in Maryland that confirms the proposition that it is not necessary for both parties to consent to the entry of a QDRO. One of the documents I reference is a Department of Labor pamphlet dealing with QDROs where it states at Question 1.2, 6th paragraph on page 5: "There is no requirement that both parties to a marital proceeding sign or otherwise endorse or approve an order." [ERISA §§ 206(d)(3)(B)(ii), 514(a), 514(b)(7); IRC § 414(p)(1)(B)] The law in Nevada may be the same,. See Mack v. Estate of Mack, that you can find at - https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2457338442981582706&q=must+both+parties+sign+qdro&hl=en&as_sdt=4,29 where in 2009 the Supreme Court of Nevada approved an oral QDRO which obviously was not and could not have been signed by the parties. In fact, The language of the Court was: " The district court issued a valid QDRO during Charla's lifetime. In the January 9 hearing, Judge Weller stated that within 48 hours, "a QDRO will be executed which will transfer to Mrs. Mack the sum of five hundred thousand dollars with any appreciation that is distributed to that five hundred thousand dollars and more or less equal installments over a period of five years." Here, the court issued a QDRO, because Judge Weller's oral order created a recognized existence in Charla, the right to receive a portion of Darren's ERISA pension plan. See id. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I). Because the district court issued a DRO, which was qualified, and it recognized Charla as an alternate payee with the right to receive a $500,000 payment from Darren's ERISA pension plan, we conclude that the QDRO was valid and affirm the order of the district court." So if the impediment in your case is the need to have the QDRO signed by both parties, the foregoing should be evidence that it is not necessary. Once again, the purpose of the QDRO is to IMPLEMENT the written Agreement of the parties, or, if they parties did not agree, the Order of the Court allocating pension and retirement benefits must likely issued in the Judgment of Divorce. Good luck David QDROs by DOL.pdf DSG Memo - SIGNATURE OF BOTH PARTIES ON QDRO.pdf

Thank you Below Ground

In a typical governmental individual-account 457(b) eligible deferred compensation plan, the only effect of normal retirement age is to set which years a participant may use an extended (by section 457, rather than age 50) deferral limit. The better way to write such a plan's provision or definition is to allow a participant to elect her normal retirement age within the bounds set by the tax-law rule. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=1278583cb06cb8fad0c0490238154ae1&mc=true&node=se26.8.1_1457_64&rgn=div8 Also, it's better to expressly provide that an election is not made until the participant's deferrals exceed what would have been proper without the "special section 457 catch-up".

In addition, the employees have an enforceable legal right to the additional funds.

What are the consequences of not following the terms of the Plan document?

You can self-correct by retroactively amending to allow 3 loans. Rev. Proc. 2019-19 addresses this.

I fear that your situation is simply too complicated to give you advice in this sort of forum. You need to find an attorney in your jurisdiction who deals with these matters. I know you are trying hard to explain what has happened, but in order to advise you an attorney would have to know the laws and procedures of your state and county, the history of the case, and review all of the documents in the file and correspondence. If you tell me the state and county in which the the case if pending, maybe somebody on this blog can recommend someone to you. Sorry I cannot be more helpful.

Yeah, I would just use G for the whole amount, including the loan.

If you are transferring the loan asset and the cash in rollover to new plan I would use the G. 100% of account rolled over so why does it matter what the actual asset was that transferred to new plan. You use G for in kind stock distribution to IRA. How is loan assets any different?