Leaderboard

Often, and with extreme pleasure, I've told creditors to pound salt when attempting to claim assets in a retirement plan to satisfy a debt - either pre-death or post. I've even enlightened a creditor on their ability to actually file an estate when no one else would (particularly for my Stepfather, who through astute estate planning died with no assets other than retirement plan assets, but leaving a $4k credit card debt). They insisted that we open an estate, and I told them if I did, I'd get paid long before they would, and since there were no assets, I wasn't going to do it (and they declined). I even once refused to turn money over to the IRS when a deadbeat taxpayer owed money. The rules are clear. even the IRS can't get to the money until distributable. They threatened me personally, then denied it, then hung up and left me alone after I offered to play them the recoding of the threat (being in a "single party consent state" I never talk to an antagonistic regulator without recording the conversation). Beating up on creditors attempting to grab plan assets is one of the small pleasures I get in my job.

7.5% is the maximum gateway required in any combo situation - the gateway can never be higher but a greater contribution may be required to satisfy the nondiscrimination testing. Also be careful if your DB is a CB - the normal allocation rate is NOT the contribution crediting rate, so 3% SHNE + 2% PS + 2.5% CB does NOT equal 7.5% gateway.

What if the person you are correcting would be in the OEX group and the group as a whole has a zero ADP. Would the correction be zero?

I have only a thought/question to offer. If the participant has named the participant‘s estate rather than an otherwise named beneficiary, it might get more interesting for the creditor. I know nothing about the estate administration, but once the distribution is made, the ERISA protections are lost. Can the estate be compelled to satisfy a claim against the participant with the distributed plan funds, or can the estate try to shield the funds and dodge the creditor for the benefit of the estate beneficiaries while the creditor tries to catch the funds in transit or to retrieve the funds from the recipients? This should not work against a designated beneficiary (presumably protected by the anti-assignment law) — or should it?

If he has no ownership, it's not a CG, nor can it be an ASG unless he's principally providing management services. That said, this could be a shared employee situation if the attorney is utilizing the firm's staff. It could also be some sort of de facto partnership if he has a profit interest in the firm (as opposed to simply a percentage of billing compensation). This sort of determination should be made by legal counsel. TPA points out the issues of an ASG and/or shared employees (IRC 414(m) and Rev Ruling 73-447. Then let the lawyers figure it out.

If a Participant in an ERISA qualified Plan retires and elect a survivor annuity for his then wife, that election is locked in by Federal law and cannot be modified a State Court pronouncement to the contrary. Federal law preempts State law. The Plan will continue to pay. Vanderkam v. Vanderkam, 776 F.3d 883, 892 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The holding in that case confirmed that when a Participant in an ERISA qualified plan retires, his then wife will immediately become irrevocably vested in her entitlement to a QJSA. The only way the Alternate Payee can lose this entitlement is via a waiver previously executed by her within 180 days prior to the commencement date of the Participant's retirement annuity. See 1055 §§(c)(1)(A)(I) and (c)(7)(A). During that 180 day period, the Alternate Payee may also revoke such waiver. See 29 U.S.C. §1055(c)(1)(A)(iii). A waiver executed prior to the applicable election period is void. Read the underlying District Court decision - Vanderkam v. PBGC, 943 F.Supp.2d 130 (USDC - DC Cir. 2014). Read also the well written opinion of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina in Setzer v. Michelin Retirement Plan - C.A. No. 3:13-cv-00192-MGL. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4368934987489954107&q=Setzer+v.+Michelin+Retirement+Plan&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=3,110,125 In this case the parties were married when the husband retired and was required by ERISA to elect a joint and survivor benefit for his wife. The only way for him to make another election would have been with the consent of his wife. Five years later, after their divorce, Mr. Setzer asked the Plan to permit him to change the survivor annuity election and to name his new wife as the beneficiary. Said the Court: “In his benefit claim, Setzer requests that in light of his divorce, 1) he be permitted to change the Joint and Survivor annuity (50%) form of pension benefit which he elected at the time he was married to Jessica and prior to his retirement and Annuity Commencement Date; 2) Jessica receive no Surviving Spouse Benefits if she survives him; and 3) he be allowed to name a new spouse beneficiary of his pension benefit should he remarry. (AR 19, 38.) As discussed fully below, ERISA and interpreting Fourth Circuit case law preclude Setzer's request. * * * * “In Hopkins v. AT&T Global Information Solutions Co., 105 F.3d 153 (4th Cir. 1997), the Fourth Circuit directly addressed the question of when a surviving spouse benefit vests in a participant's spouse. The Fourth Circuit concluded that under ERISA, "the Surviving Spouse Benefits vest in the spouse married to the participant on the date of retirement." Id. at 156. The Court went on to conclude that "[u]nless the form of benefit is properly changed prior to retirement, the participant is locked into the joint and survivor annuity upon retirement . . . [and] cannot change the form of benefit, even with the current spouse's consent." Id. at 157. Here, the vesting of the Surviving Spouse Benefits occurred on December 1, 2004, the date of Setzer's retirement and commencement of benefits. Consequently, as a matter of law, Setzer cannot change the Joint and Survivor form of benefit, even though Jessica purported to waive any claim or interest she might have in Setzer's pension benefits.”

For an ERISA-governed individual-account retirement plan, when an alternate payee may get a QDRO distribution goes like this: A plan must allow a QDRO distribution if the participant is entitled to a distribution under the plan. A plan must allow a QDRO distribution on the later of the participant’s age 50 or the earliest date on which the participant could begin receiving benefits under the plan if the participant separated from service. ERISA § 206(d)(3)(E), 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3) http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:29%20section:1056%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title29-section1056)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true A plan may provide an alternate payee’s QDRO distribution before the plan provides a distribution to the participant. 26 C.F.R. § 1.401(a)-13(g)(3); https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-1/subject-group-ECFR6f8c3724b50e44d/section-1.401(a)-13#p-1.401(a)-13(g)(3) Whether an individual-account plan provides a QDRO distribution before the participant’s earliest retirement age is a plan-design choice.