Leaderboard

If the plan is ERISA-governed, an order does not fail to be a DRO or a QDRO (as ERISA § 206(d)(3) defines those terms) because of when the court made the order. (An order might fail to be a QDRO based on how what the order would provide relates to facts and circumstances that might have changed since the court made the order.) If the plan is a governmental plan, a church plan (that did not elect to be ERISA-governed), or otherwise not ERISA-governed, read the plan’s governing documents. Some plans of those kinds set detailed conditions for an order the plan recognizes, and those conditions might be stricter than ERISA § 206(d)(3) and Internal Revenue Code § 414(p).

I had to smile when I read Annie's last post....I have worked on Relius my entire career (32 years). We were on FDP to start - boy those were the days! You could go to Miami for training and were treated like kings and queens, great training, great people, great dinners, etc. You called and got a real person when you had a question. (heavy sigh) We then transitioned to Quantech. Always used the stand alone systems for both FDP and Quantech. Then finally currently on ASP. One advantage from way back is that they keep the software udpated, which I like as opposed to having to do our own updates on the stand alone systems. It took some getting used to ASP (still getting used to it 🙂). The software itself is MUCH slower at times. Tried to blame our internet connection, but that is screaming fast for everything else and even the log in to ASP, so I'm pretty sure it's just ASP. Haven't had a LOT of service issues but you are right about the slow down on those too. Thankfully I haven't had to put in any incidents because I'm not able to log in to the Portal. I got locked out and then couldn't get it to reset so I have to call to get a reset for that and haven't had time.

Thanks Mr. Bagwell, oh, that portal. LOL We're using it, just not loving it. I've been using Relius almost my entire career - I started with pentabs almost 30 years ago, then switched to Quantech about 25 years ago. I've rolled with the changes and never had such a hard time adjusting as I have to this ASP version. If only their service was better, I think it would make a huge difference. I'll look for that correspondence, I appreciate your contribution! thanks, Annie

12 months from the date of the prior rollover; not based on taxable/calendar year. See IRC sec. 408(d)(3)(B).

Yes... if each plan's trust will be separate from each other, each plan's trust will need its own Trust EIN.

Yes, this is normal. The number that they need is the EIN of the trust, not the EIN of the employer.

I don't have a spreadsheet for it, but I do know the typical 4-step process is: a) everyone first gets their 3% to cover TH b) only then does the "excess piece" kick in, where folks next get up to 3% of their excess pay. If the contribution is just barely over a flat 3%, then you get a somewhat odd-looking case of people maybe getting 3% of pay plus only 0.6% of their excess pay. But often the whole 3% on excess pay (above the integration level) ends up filling up, too. c) Then with everyone at 3+3, you scale everyone up to as high as 4.3, 5.4, or 5.7% of combined "compensation plus excess compensation", depending on your integration level. Here's where, if the contribution amount runs out, you might end up the folks all getting 5.2% of compensation plus 5.2% of excess compensation (it's the same rate in both parts there, unlike in (b) above d) Once everyone's maxed out their excess piece there, the rest is pro rata, comp to comp.

You know how you get a plan from another TPA and you simply don't know what the daisy is going on? This plan has all participants with money in a Pooled account, and half the participants have an additional self directed account (my first post was wrong). So apparently 404(c) only applies to those s/d accounts. I've simply never seen that. In fact, I haven't seen a plan with all self directed brokerage accounts that was designated as 404(c). I've only ever seen it with the traditional recordkeepers and there's always a QDIA attached. I guess, Luke, we can leave it as is.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong as it's been a few years, but my recollection is that any current participant with an accrued benefit would need to have the existing (more favorable) NRA rule apply to their accrued benefit as of the date of the amendment. Any new contributions could be subject to the new NRA. Like a vesting change, this would require tracking pre- and post-amendment balances. In the small handful of times I've done this, the plan sponsor has always applied the new NRA only to participants newly eligible on or after the effective date of the amendment. And it will likely only affect a small handful of people. Anyone who has already met the six-year (or less) vesting schedule will not be affected at all, regardless of age, unless there is some other right tied to NRA (e.g., in-service distributions). So a 58-year-old participant with 20 years of service will not be adversely affected, even if their "new" NRA is 65.