Leaderboard

Ask him to show you the regs that says it is optional. Anything other than $7000 in your example is a random number chosen by someone; the excess over $7000 is not an RMD and subject to all normal distribution rules (e.g. 20% WH).

FWIW...our document vendor's opinion was that the participant in my example above would have/should have entered the plan on 10/1/2023. Our default election for LTPT eligibility in our SECURE/CARES interim amendments is/was, switching ECPS. That is consistent with how we set up plans for normal eligibility and allows us to better assist sponsors with eligibility tracking. Absent some formal guidance saying no LTPT employees enter before 1/1/2024, we are going to have our off-calendar year clients execute SECURE/CARES interim amendments calling for ECPs based on anniversary years for LTPT purposes for at least the period 2021 - 2023. Given the extended deadline for SECURE/CARES interim amendments, this should be a reasonable solution to address potential 2023 entry dates for LTPT participants in off-calendar year plans.

Thank you, interesting story. What is your role in all of this? From the Plan Administrator's (PA) perspective - they only review the DRO as provided and determine if it is "Qualified". Being "Qualified" has nothing to do with the separation agreement, or divorce decree, or what is said in court. It only relates to - is the split determinable and does it increase the plan's liability. I specifically tell my clients NOT to read the divorce decree or get involved of any of the "he said, she said", or probably now, "they said". None of that stuff matters in determining if a DRO is a QDRO. The Plan should have a QDRO Procedure that is available to the member. Something the member might want to request and read. It sounds like the attorney submitted a draft to the PA for preliminary approval, but the PA said it needed additional information. So they have a DRO, but not a QDRO. The QDRO procedures will define what will happen, but typically, if nothing new comes in for the PA to approve, they will move forward and just ignore it. The Participant will receive full payments until a new DRO is submitted. At that point, the APs only option will be a shared interest QDRO on a future payment stream. Get the QDRO Procedure - you answer should be there.

That a church plan is not ERISA-governed does not mean no fiduciary law applies. As John Feldt suggests, consider: the plan’s governing documents; the wage-deduction agreement’s express and implied terms; a provision implied by interpreting a gap or ambiguity to favor a provision needed for the plan to get § 403(b) tax treatment; the church’s internal law, which might provide a church employer’s responsibilities or a worker’s rights beyond those the plan provides; State law, at least of the State the governing documents specify as the plan’s governing law and, if no choice is specified or the choice’s effect is doubtful, the law of each State that arguably might govern the plan or a participant’s rights. each applicable State’s wage-payment law, which might set up, expressly or impliedly, a wage payer’s responsibility to apply promptly a wage deduction the worker authorized. Under the common law of trusts, agency, and other fiduciary relationships, one will find a duty to invest or apply reasonably promptly the relationship’s assets.