Leaderboard

We had to go back and amend a 2015 filing for a Plan. FT automatically: 1) Converted the filing to the 2019 form (per the DOL's requirements). 2) Converted the 2015 Schedule R to a pdf and added it as an attachment (again the per DOL's requirements). Myself and another consultant were absolutely in shock that they did that. We thought we were going to spend an hour rekeying everyhing. I'm telling you, FT William is one of my favorite companies to work with. OK maybe other vendors software would do the same thing, I don't know. If they do, then kudos to them as well.

1.416-1 Q&A M-10

To add to MoJo, you were both badly represented by your counsel. The judge's order is NOT a QDRO unless and until it is submitted to the plan and the plan certifies it as a QDRO and accepts it. It was a major fault to provide that it was not to be sent to the plan UNTIL one of you retired. Someone may have a malpractice claim against the lawyers involved, but it won't be pleasant.

We have been using FT Williams for years for documents and Form 5500s. We are very happy both with their products and their service. Mike

To follow the statute, a plan’s administrator (if it uses the safe-harbor explanation) should have rewritten its § 402(f) notice as soon as the preceding safe-harbor explanation no longer met the commands of § 402(f)(1)(A)-(E). Whatever reliance Notice 2018-74 afforded, one gets no reliance to the extent that an explanation is no longer accurate because of a law change after September 18, 2018. (A caution of that kind has been in successive IRS Notices with revised safe-harbor explanations.) Yet many service providers wait for the IRS’s release of a revised safe-harbor explanation. Some businesspeople imagine the Internal Revenue Service might be reluctant to assess a penalty against an administrator if it delivered an otherwise proper notice grounded on the preceding safe-harbor explanation and the only defect is incorrect or incomplete content while waiting for the IRS’s revised safe-harbor explanation. Likewise, some administrators estimate (whether expressly or impliedly) a modest exposure to liability for a distributee’s reliance on incomplete, incorrect, or misleading information. For an administrator or service provider that waits for the IRS’s revision of a safe-harbor explanation, it seems wise to implement a new version promptly after the IRS publishes it.

The plan is only responsible from the point it receives the QDRO. Anything paid to your ex prior to that is now receivable from your ex. So, basically, you'd have to get the court to enforce the divorce decree and have him cough up what should have been your share. Just an FYI - the QDRO could have been delivered to the plan at the time it was issued (you don't have to wait until retirement to send it to them). That then secures the benefit no matter when is starts.

Sorry. Had to. ?

The question I have is "why are you asking"? To most of us practitioners, the idea of employer vs plan cost matters when you have a trust. If you don't have one -- it's an academic question.