Leaderboard

Occasionally greater truths are learned on this board.

If an employee moves from an eligible classification to an ineligible classification, for example from division A to division B, they may be excluded prospectively. Check the plan document, as it should explain what happens when an employee moves from eligible to ineligible classification. For service-based participation conditions, the maximum permissible condition is described in IRC 410(a) - 1 year (1000 hours) of service. If an employee has completed 1000 hours of service then they may not be excluded on the basis of service. They may not be excluded merely because their hours drop below 1000 in a later year.

It's the company's tax year that governs the timing rule.

As long as the EIN and plan number are correct, I wouldn't lose sleep whichever way you do it.

I've worked with Fidelity, they absolutely can do this. They might not make it easy, but it's possible. Your employer (or their third party administrator) might have to open a service request with Fidelity. If they won't do it, look at your SPD for claim procedures. You have a right to bring a claim for benefits under sec. 502 of ERISA. Hopefully just asking for this info will get your employer in line, as you mentioned no one wants to have to bring it to the courts. If they just cut you a check for $7,000, here are some of the consequences of that: It is not a plan distribution, so it can not be rolled over. If you are eligible, you could use it to make an IRA contribution (not a rollover), up to the annual limit ($6,000 plus $1,000 catch-up if you are over 50 for 2021). It is not a plan distribution, so there is no 10% early withdrawal penalty. If it is treated as wages (reported on W-2), it will be included in your income for federal and state income tax, FICA tax, etc. If it is treated as non-employee or independent contractor compensation, you could also owe self-employment taxes on it, plus you may have to file a schedule C to report the self-employment income on your 1040. Even if your employer has you sign something that you agree not to come after them for the $7,000 from the plan later on, that would be unenforceable. Both ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code have anti-alienation and anti-assignment clauses, meaning that it is impossible for you to lose your rights to money that is owed to you under the plan, even voluntarily. So you could theoretically come back for it years from now, and they could still be liable.

Authority: 1. The statute, both IRC and ERISA provisions speak only to what happens if a plan receives a domestic relations order (not notice or whiff of an order). 2. Schoonmaker v. Employee Sav. Plan (Amoco) 987 F.2d 410 (7th cir. 1992), which interprets the statute literally and narrowly and imposes liability on the fiduciary for restricting distribution based on less than receipt of a domestic relations order. Note that the DOL either has never read the case or the statute or does not believe the words on the page and takes a position similar to that described by fmsinc. I think the DOL view of fiduciary responsibility in these matters is wrong as a matter of law and implementing the DOL position is problematic and not solved by the magic of "actual knowledge".

Ananda, you are all over the map. If I were you I'd start all over and see if you could get a coherent response. To add fuel to the fire of incoherence another option for notarization is e notarization, made popular during covid.

Unless the plan (1) received a domestic relations order, or (2) shot itself in the foot will ill-advised provisions in its QDRO Procedures (possibly inspired by the ill-advised suggestions of the Department of Labor), the plan has no duty to inquire about anything in domestic relations proceedings, including compliance with terms of any decrees, orders, or judgments, including an order to prepare a domestic relations order that is intended to be a QDRO.

This is a great discussion. Thank you all for your (differing) viewpoints.

I had started to reply, but got interrupted. Since my reply was going to be substantially the same as shERPA's, I'll just say, "What shERPA said."

Did the trustee not want it processed? Does the "TPA" also hold the plan assets? If not, how did the money get paid out by the recordkeeper/custodian? Is the TPA an authorized signer on the account? If so presumably the trustee approved this? If not, it shouldn't have been processed by the RK. Why did that happen? Too many unknowns to opine. Assuming TPA isn't engaged to do this, they need to tighten up procedures to prevent it from happening again and TPA should not allow itself to be an authorized signer on the account.