Leaderboard

Whether they "feed off each other" or not is irrelevant for controlled group status. It is purely a question of ownership, and can be determined with mathematical certainty. What business form are these businesses (corporate, partnership - including LLC, or sole proprietorships) and who owns interest (and amount) of each. Feeding off each other *may* bring in the affiliated service group rules (bit those are more complicated).

Yes I once way, way back in the '90s and I was just starting I worked on a client that was a dentist. He had himself and 2 employees in that practice. He also owned a hobby farm that he lived on but had 3 farm hands. He owned 100% of it all. All one big happy controlled group.

So definite control group for the insurance and financial advisor businesses. And, to take it further, control group even if one business sells insurance and the other ice cream sundaes. Thanks!

Agree with MoJo. The only exception might be if they could qualify for QSLOB treatment, but that requires 50+ ees in each and other very stringent items.

In this situation, I think it will depend on the RK. Back when I only did TPA work, some RKs would have an SDBA option that was part of the same trust. In that case, the SDBA activity could be accessed through the RK platform. Other RKs would have an SDBA option where the balance could be seen, but not the activity. This was as of 2020 or so. I wouldn't be surprised if more RKs are able to provide all activity at this point. Third party developers can API millions of data points every day for many of the apps in your app store, there is no reason SDBA data can't push to an RK in real time or at least daily.

The fee has to be reasonable, and if the QDRO is complex or if the parties engage in extended negotiations that yield multiple draft DROs for review, then hourly fees are appropriate. Having a fixed fee makes sense for a "standard" QDRO where there is one DRO presented that is drafted properly and divides the assets between the participant and one alternate payee using reasonable time frames. If the practitioner wishes to avoid using hourly fees, consider having a fixed fee for the various parts of the process - a fee for each DRO reviewed, a fee for each additional alternate payee, and a fee for each year of data history needed. If there was a way to do it, I would add an incompetence fee. I am amazed at the number of DROs have the wrong plan name because the drafter used a DRO for a different client as a model and did not proof read the DRO before submitting it for review.

A brokerage house who understands the retirement plan industry will apply restrictions on type of securities that can be purchased. The capability is already baked into the validation of a trade instruction. Some go so far as to accept a modest list of specific investment such as mutual funds that are held in the plan's list of core mutual funds. This keeps a participant from investing in higher cost share classes or from paying trading frequency penalties when the participant can use the core fund menu. If an employer wishes to have visibility into participants' SDBAs, then the employer should do the due diligence on the capabilities of the broker or brokers that participants are permitted to use within the plan. We worked with one client with around 20 different brokers handling accounts for about 60 participants. We set up a list of requirements and if the broker did not agree to restrict the account to permissible assets and to provide electronic access to the trustees, participants were not allowed to use that broker. When the requirements were implemented, there were a handful of participants and their brokers who objected. The company made no exceptions and participants who wanted to continue having an SDBA acquiesced.