Leaderboard

Scam is a perfect definition. There is NO SUCH DOL REQUIREMENT. We have had clients get calls from them; our clients are educated to know these kind of calls need to be reviewed with us. This group calls to "disturb" the client, to get the meeting, to convince them they are doing wrong things, and ultimately to get the assets under the control of the person who is buying the leads.

They sell "401(k) leads" to financial advisors. They collect the data, package it in a report, and sell it as a lead. Im sure they do some sort of review so they can say they provided a service, but their game is selling access to the plan.

This participant does not seem to meet the criteria based on your description, but this is a common situation and I think the consensus is that we will get guidance to clarify that this is one of the "other factors as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury during the COVID-19 pandemic".

The winner!

Unless a plan's written QDRO procedures provide otherwise (which many do*, although they should not unless they like trouble), the plan conducts business as usual unless the plan (including an agent of the plan) receives a domestic relations order -- not hears about one, smells one, or infers one. If a terminated participant is entitled to a distribution, then a distribution should be processed in accordance with usual plan procedures. If the Standing Order has been delivered to the plan, then the plan should follow its procedures for processing a domestic relations order (we know it does not meet the requirements). This is the same approach as can be taken with the travesty California Joinder Orders. The plan has a reasonable time to determine whether or not the standing Order is qualified, and will not make a distribution pending its decision. Who knows what a reasonable time is, exactly? With any luck, a "real" domestic relations order that want to be a QDRO will be received within a reasonable time and then things are back to normal. If not, then the QDRO fiduciary (probably PA) will have to take appropriate action on the Standing Order, which will involve allowing a reasonable time for that action to be appealed by the aggrieved person and no distribution will be made pending the decision on appeal. The circumstances are complicated because a plan fiduciary is a party to the divorce and presumably has knowledge or receipt of the Standing Order?. Is that receipt by the plan? I would prefer not to argue that it is not receipt by the plan. Forget about the rollover, analytically. Rollover is merely something that can happen to certain distributions. It is only a distraction in this matter. I agree with Larry Starr that this should be overseen by the plan administrator, even if the plan administrator is clueless and reliant on the TPA for everything (which is why TPAs get out of their lane too often). Be careful who you choose as advisers. *Misguided by incorrect informal Department of Labor guidance about the law.

I think the TPA is absolutely wrong; the paperwork should be forwarded. The Plan Administrator is in charge; not the TPA. A discussion should be had between the TPA and the PA explaining all the info above, but it is up to the PA to decide how to handle this. I think the recommendation to NOT do the rollover because of the pending divorce is correct, but it is the PA's decision to make, not the TPA.

Of course. A final 5500 is just a 5500. The due date is 7 months after the end of the plan year (date last assets were distributed) and the extension would be 2.5 months after that.

I'd say absolutely yes to 1, 2 and 3. Q4 is the $1M Q. Most likely answer is someone didn't know what they were doing.

The first $10k is part of the 2019 allocation; which means that now $20k is carried forward as 415 suspense account into 2020.

All good answers already, but my comment would be that there is little (no?) excuse for mailing checks in today's world. The "vendor made me do it" excuse does not work. If the vendor does not make electronic deposit possible, the plan sponsor should choose a vendor who does support this. PNJ

One wonders how quickly an employer pays withheld taxes and other recipients of wage deductions. If it's as quickly as I imagine, what explanation would a fiduciary give for treating a retirement plan worse than other creditors?

You have gotten good responses previously, but I just want to state it unequivocally that this employer is WRONG in what they are doing regardless of whether mailing or receipt is the answer. They need to stop thinking about this 7/8 day window. There is no doubt they can get the check in earlier; we don't even talk to clients about the "8 day rule". They are told they need to get the money on its way the same day they do the payroll (or maybe a day or two later, but that's it). Anything else is a recipe for a problem.