Leaderboard

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.

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.

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.

I work in 403(b) almost exclusively and really appreciate them. I have never worked with Service Support as fast or as good as theirs. I don't remember the document issue but time was of the essence and I was discussing this with a colleague at QBI who uses another vendor for 401(k) documents. I told her I would ask FTW and get back to her that afternoon. She said something to the effect of "You won't hear back by then!" I replied that I would and did!

Take a look at 4975(e)(1), which defines "plan" for the purposes of the prohibited transaction excise tax. Welfare plan trusts (VEBAs and anything else) are not defined as PTs. However, depending on the nature of your trust and the expenses paid, you may have other issues that may endanger the tax qualification of your trust.

For us, and as is the "norm" absent a jumbo plan, the recordkeerper would not take the deposit out of normal systems. I did ask, but we were denied. In my case Alonzo, interestingly enough, it was me who said it should be late, and the auditor who said it would not be. I'm surprised the DOL has never said something publicly along the lines of "a blackout is not the participant's fault" so late is late. Without question the path of no risk is to do the interst calc. But alas that is a pain the @$$... so I did not argue the point!

I know I'm fighting a losing battle. I like these little mental exercises from time to time.

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.

Like you Austin, our office has been and is extremely pleased with FT William Software. I think they are terrific.

It is still required if it's an eligible rollover distribution that is not made on account of COVID-19.

Kind of... If your document says 3% nonelective, that contribution is required whether you provided a safe harbor notice or not. The notice requirement was removed as a consequence of adding retroactive safe harbor nonelective election. It wouldn't make sense to require a notice if you intend to be safe harbor when the new year starts but waive the notice requirement for the plan that is ADP/ACP tested and elects to be safe harbor on September 1. If you truly want the nonelective contribution to be "optional", you would need to amend to ADP/ACP tested prior to first day of the plan year, amend to be safe harbor mid year if you opt in, and then amend to ADP/ACP tested prior to the next plan year in order to have the same choice in the following year. Ive decided it takes about the same time and effort for me to track the different safe harbors to figure out which one HAS to have a notice, Im just going to continue with a notice for all my SH plans.