Leaderboard

About what’s required: “Every employee benefit plan shall . . . provide a procedure for amending such plan, and for identifying the persons who have authority to amend the plan[.]” ERISA § 402(b)(3), unofficially compiled as 29 U.S.C. § 1102(b)(3). Yet, the Supreme Court holds that stating as little as “[t]he Company” may amend the plan is enough to meet ERISA § 402(b)(3)’s two requirements—that a plan “provide a procedure for amending [the] plan, and [a procedure] for identifying the persons who have authority to amend the plan[.]”). Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen, 514 U.S. 73, 18 Empl. Benefits Cas. (BL) 2841 (Mar. 6, 1995). For a restatement or other amendment, one looks to the governing documents (as they exist just before the restatement one is about to adopt) to find what the documents require for an amendment of them to be effective. An IRS-preapproved document likely allows almost anything as an amendment. About “each partner with their own corp.”, check whether each corporation is a participating employer or a participant. (For situations in which the corporations comprise the partners of the partnership, either configuration is possible.) If a corporation is a participating employer, check that it signs whatever the documents require for an organization to join as a participating employer. Likewise, if the adoption agreement doesn’t name the participating employers, one might add something to show the plan sponsor’s assent. Whether to do something more than what ERISA, the Internal Revenue Code, and the governing documents require is up to the organizations’ business judgment.

I agree with Luke. Interpleader can be a good option to protect the plan when benefits haven't yet been paid and there's some uncertainty. Even letting the parties know about that possibility can result in them going back to the court on their own to get an order either confirming or modifying the QDRO. Alternatively, if there's no reasonable challenge to the order, you could give the participant X days to get an amendment to the order or show legal process that he's taking steps to do so. In any event, QDRO Procedures should address how to handle these sorts of situations (and if not, you may want to consider amending them to do so).

You may find this helpful--footnote 39 of the preamble to the 2000 claims regulations states: Additionally, Section 206(d)(3) provides that a plan shall establish reasonable procedures to determine the qualified status of an order. If the order is determined to be a QDRO, the administrator “shall pay” the segregated amounts to the AP. If a plan fiduciary complies with their fiduciary duties in treating an order as a QDRO/paying benefits, then the plan’s obligation to P and AP are discharged to the extent of the payment made.

Pretty sure SHNEC money can't be used to offset integrated contributions. Unless everyone is in their own group (which is at least implied as not the case), then this allocation isn't being done correctly.

Loans are not a protected benefit, and eliminating the availability of loans is not a prohibited cutback. 1.411(d)-4(d)(4)

I don't see the appeals process taking precedence over the AP's right to benefits under a QDRO. Once the DRO is adjudged a QDRO, the amount payable under the QDRO is no longer a benefit payable to the participant, and that is *not* something that the plan's appeal's process has jurisdiction over. As I said, if s/he has an issue with the DRO, the proper course of action is through the court/agency that issued the order.

Forfeitures are $X Declare a PS contribution of $X. Reduce the amount of contributions to the trust by $X. Allocate $X to participants.

As I understand it you need the same plan year to combo test the DB/DC so unless you are terminating the DC plan the same date as the DB plan I would think think you would want to make the termination December 31 if you want to combo test the DB/DC together. Maybe someone else has a different opinion. And since this sounds like SH 401(k) unless you meet one of the exceptions, operating at economic loss, or qualified business transaction (generally selling the company) you'll lose the safe harbor status for the year of termination if it's not 12 months.

If you have any doubts whatsoever regarding whether to honor the QDRO, based on whatever the participant is arguing (e.g., collusion of alternate payee's and his/her counsel constituting fraud), you should consider interpleading the benefit in court and let the court sort it out.

That does make more sense. I just looked at a plan document, the SH is supposed to offset step 4 rather than step 1 of a four-tier integrated allocation. I agree, no running the "integrated" piece on top of the 3% safe harbor.

Agreed on the elective deferrals going into the 457(b) plan, and corresponding matching contributions going into the 401(a) plan, but I'm not sure I follow the rest. Employer and employee amounts deferred under a governmental 457(b) plan are taxed when paid to the participant. See Section 457(a)(1)(A). Separating the match into the 401(a) plan allows the employee to defer the maximum amount under 457(b) without the employer match eating into the limit.

Sounds like a problem. If everyone is in their own rate group and you were cross testing and it passed gateway and 401(a)(4) that could make sense. But doesn't make any sense in an integrated allocation where you can't even use the 3% SHNEC as part of the PS base, I'm not sure how you passed testing with only the HCE owner benefiting.

Seriously, look here: https://employeebenefitsjobs.com/jobs/by_date.html?utm_source=menu

Yes. My added point is that, even if a trustee’s resignation or removal took effect, a custodian or other service provider might not be responsible for a harm that results from the provider’s good-faith reliance on the apparent authority of someone the provider does not yet know is no longer a trustee or other fiduciary.

I agree with this. But I recall that unless the DB plan termination amendment actually creates a short plan year instead of just a termination date where accruals cease and no new participants, the DB plan year is still a full plan year and the DB/DC can still be combo-tested.

Whether the DRO is a QDRO is a question for the administrator - provided it is entered into by a court (or other entity) with jurisdiction. It, IMHO, is totally irrelevant what the participant thinks. If the PA has made the appropriate determination, I see no reason to place a hold on the AP's claim for plan assets. Pay the PA, and deal with what is left for the participant to lay claim to. If the participant is unhappy - they need to go back to the issuer of the DRO....