Leaderboard

How can A, B and X not be an affiliated service group?

Forget about the 3%. You are making a PS contribution of 5%. That is more than 3% so TH is satisfied. It (3%) does not get special treatment.

I'll let you know, just as soon as I meet a divorce attorney who can draft a QDRO...

If you're looking for a cite, it's:

Here is the answer per regulations: 29 U.S. Code § 1191b - Definitions https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/1191b (2)Benefits not subject to requirements if offered separately (A) Limited scope dental or vision benefits. (B) Benefits for long-term care, nursing home care, home health care, community-based care, or any combination thereof. (C) Such other similar, limited benefits as are specified in regulations. (3)Benefits not subject to requirements if offered as independent, noncoordinated benefits (A) Coverage only for a specified disease or illness. (B) Hospital indemnity or other fixed indemnity insurance.

I took it to mean that if the Plan is allowed to pay expenses, a pro-rata share could be charged to the suspense account, but the suspense account could not annually pay 100% of the plan expenses like a forfeiture account might. That is each year it would pay a declining share as it is allocated to participant accounts.

QDROphile is correct that most state, county and municipal plans are not covered by ERISA, the Federal law that normally covers pension and retirement plans adopted by private employers in the US. But I have seen some state, county and municipal plans that have adopted ERISA qualified Plans in order to facilitate ease of administration either in-house or by third party administrators. You used the acronym DRO and QDRO. The "Q" in QDRO stands for "qualified" under ERISA. So your first task is to see if ERISA even applies to your disability pay. If you didn't work for Marin County, and just mentioned Marin because that's where the Court is located, then you started off on the wrong track. Keep in mind that the purpose of the DRO in you case is not to allocate "marital property" or "community property" between you and your ex-wife. It is intended to pay your ex-wife alimony (spousal support). If you are under ERISA this is a legitimate use of a QDRO. However, the question is whether or not under California law disability benefits can be the subject of a DRO at all, or can it exclude spousal support. My my home state, Maryland, disability benefits can be accessed to pay child support and alimony, even if they could not be divided as property. See Riley v. Riley, 82 Md.App. 400, 571 A.2d 1261 (1990). And in the Supreme Court case of Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619 (1987) - https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8800536124027399358&q=rose+v.+rose&hl=en&as_sdt=20000003 the question was whether a state court has jurisdiction to hold a disabled veteran in contempt for failing to pay child support, where the veteran's only means of satisfying this obligation is to utilize benefits received from the Veterans' Administration under 38 U. S. C. § 314 as compensation for a service-connected disability that cannot be divided as "property". The Supreme Court held that such disability payments can to accessed for child support. It is clear that the same outcome would apply to payments of spousal support. Also keep in mind that a DRO/QDRO is an order entered by the Court and enforced by the administrator of the applicable plan. The administrator is authorized to do only what the Court has set forth in the DRO/QDRO. The administrator doesn't prepare the DRO/QDRO. Your comments about the plan administrator are just not logical. All Court orders that are intended to attach assets via a garnishment or via a DRO/QDRO must state the amount or percentage of payments to be collected from the garnishee or Plan Administrator and the duration of such payments. Often the duration is "pending further order of the Court." There is something you are missing and the fact that you obviously did not have a lawyer representing your interests led to your problems. DSG

Yes, I believe if you are a 5% owner in the year you attain age 70.5 then you are considered such in the future regardless of any divestitures.

The transferred assets have to be allocated no less rapidly than ratably over 7 years. So you have to do at least 1/7th in the first year, then 1/6th of what remains in the second year, and so on. 415 limits permitting. You can use a non-safe harbor method to allocate, as long as it is permitted by the plan document and satisfies all applicable testing. I don't know that the IRS has ever actually come out and said that the 20% excise tax applies on any amounts that remain unallocated after 7 years. However, to be on the safe side, I would suggest not leaving any unallocated assets if at all possible, meaning get everyone to their 415 limit rather than leave unallocated assets. No. It's not a forfeiture account. However if the plan generally pays certain expenses, I don't see any reason why those expenses couldn't be charged against the QRP account the same as any other account.

I think they can't technically call it a match, because there weren't actually any deferrals. So calculate what the match would have been, and make that as a nonelective contribution.

A bank or broker-dealer might be correct in asking for information on all trustees. Further, even if you might learn the banking and securities laws and rules involved and might find that a particular bank or broker-dealer asks for more information than the minimum public law requires, knowing that information likely wouldn’t help. In applying know-your-customer and anti-money-laundering laws and rules, each bank or broker-dealer designs its own policies and procedures. A procedure might require obtaining information about each human who has some authority or control over the account to be opened or continued.