Leaderboard

There is a lot of information here, and I am not an expert on teachers plans, but hopefully someone else will jump in. I am also assuming these are related to a defined benefit plan (monthly lifetime benefit) and not a defined contribution plan (pool of money) Teachers plans are generally operated by the state and therefore some of the QDRO rules apply differently. That said, to answer you basic question of "can a QDRO be amended post-divorce?", Yes, but it would be very rare. In order for the QDRO to exist, both parties had to agree to the current wording. Therefore, in order to change it, both parties would need to agree that the wording was now incorrect for some reason, they would need to agree to get the attorneys involved, then they would need to go back to court and get a judge to agree. So I won't say it isn't possible, but I have never seen it done. I am also not clear what you would want to change. You mention naming children as beneficiaries, but that would likely not be possible even if you could change it. QDROs can only allocate the benefit the plan was obligated to pay. Generally, pension plans only pay lifetime benefits to the employee and their spouse.

We normally prepare and submit VCP filings. We did have one case where the attorney formally submitted it, but hired us to prepare everything. Normally there is no attorney involved. Luke's suggestions seem good to me, but typically our plans are small employers, and they don't want to pay attorney fees for what are normally fairly routine corrections.

Peter, I think it is often advisable to put an attorney in charge of the correction and have the attorney hire the non-attorney service providers that will be involved in the VCP investigation and submission, pursuant to a Kovel agreement. The purposes of doing this is to shield all of the pre-submission fact-finding, advice, and decision-making behind attorney-client privilege, which can be important in situations where it is not clear from the outset, prior to completion of the factual investigation and review of possible correction costs, that the plan sponsor will be willing to bare its qualified plan soul to IRS and accept any correction required by it, but instead wants to explore possible correction alternatives both with a practitioner and with the IRS through a pre-submission conference, Attorney-client privilege can also be valuable in large cases where the employer may be considering requesting indemnification from a third party.

Like most open ended questions the answer is it all depends. What is the objective - rewarding/sharing in profits, retention/competitive comp & benefits package? What is the industry, how much does the person make, what can the employer afford to provide? If the employer provides other substantial benefits on the health and welfare side, maybe a SEP or SIMPLE IRA or 401(k) plan with a match is appropriate. If the employee is invaluable, say hired to run someone's business for them, then maybe a 401(k) with a substantial profit sharing is appropriate, or even a defined benefit plan if $60k-$70k in annual retirement isn't enough, although if the owner is also an "employee" then this may or may not be possible depending on circumstances. Answers to those two questions at a minimum are necessary and you ask for "best options" - for the employer or employee or blending the needs for each?

Forgetting about the short plan year and termination for the moment, what if the PYE and valuation date was 12/1 instead of 12/31. Would your MRC due date still be 9/15 or 8/15 (8/16)? I think it's the August date. So in your situation I think it's due 7/7ish. Also, why risk a late contribution for 8 days over an interpretation question/gray area?

I've never done it but I think the fix involves VCP with requested return of the ineligible distributions from affected participants. I'm not sure what happens if you are unable to recover the funds. That is the participant says no I'm not returning it, I already spent it, or something like that. For taxable payments to employees my best guess is the IRS will simply let it go if you make good faith effort to recover, for funds that were rolled over to an IRA they would probably want those treated as ineligible for rollover (unless there was another distributable event) with amended 1099-Rs if the funds are not returned.

Luke Bailey and Belgarath, thank you for your further observations. Luke Bailey, thank you for mentioning Kovel translation or explanation, fact-gathering, and other arrangements preparing a lawyer to form her advice. In my course’s lesson about confidences and evidence-law privileges, we’ve considered whether a Kovel (or similar State-law) tolerance applies when a lawyer engages an accounting firm or consulting firm but nothing in that firm’s work involves accounting, actuarial practice, business advice, investment advice, or any discipline other than legal advice. But a lawyer’s engagement of others for fact-gathering should work with no need for any Kovel doctrine.

Any TPA with an ERPA on staff is likely to handle VCP submissions. An ERPA can get Power of Attorney and prepare the submission on behalf of the client, as well as having direct conversations with the IRS if there are any follow-up items. I have prepared many a VCP, and I'm sure that is the case for most ERPAs reading this posting. While a plan sponsor isn't required to find someone to represent them, I have never seen a client yet who would tackle a VCP submission on their own. Although the submissions are fairly boilerplate, the attachments and the narratives and the process as a whole requires a certain level of expertise. My experience has been that recordkeepers step away from any issues that involve functions outside of recordkeeping / lower level plan administration processes if they are not a fiduciary. I can't speak to bundled arrangements where the recordkeepers serve as Trustee and handle TPA functions. Typically, a VCP submission is prepared because the client has made an error, but once in while you will see a VCP submission for a situation where the error was the TPA's. I recall our office prepared a group submission that was the result of a universal document error many years ago. This was so long ago that I don't clearly remember if it was our office or the document provider's fault, but the submission was required and it impacted all clients on that document, and I'm pretty sure we prepared the submission. When I say "we," that means I wasn't the lucky person who got to do that, so I just don't remember. Clearly the big question is about conflicts of interest, and I have never even considered it might be a possibility when preparing submissions, regardless of the reason. The focus is always to clear up a plan qualification issue.

ADEA?

How could there be no employee choice between cash and health coverage? You would have state wage withholding problems if you forced participation in a plan with employee contributions. In other words, there always is going to be the choice between cash and the health plan, which is why you need the Section 125 cafeteria plan safe harbor from constructive receipt to facilitate pre-tax contributions. It's the only game in town. Full details: https://www.newfront.com/blog/the-section-125-safe-harbor-from-constructive-receipt Cite: Prop. Treas. Reg. §1.125-1(b)(1): (1) Cafeteria plans. Section 125 is the exclusive means by which an employer can offer employees an election between taxable and nontaxable benefits without the election itself resulting in inclusion in gross income by the employees. Slide summary: 2023 Newfront Section 125 Cafeteria Plans Guide