Leaderboard

Per Diems can be excluded, provided it's a legitimate classification. I even went through VCP to give retroactive relief to a hospital that had always excluded per diems, but whose prototype provider mistakenly treated them as if they were part-time and includible if they were paid for 1,000 hours. We showed IRS communications and salary structures which made clear for this hospital that the per diem exclusion could be applied, regardless of document mistake and even for those with more than 1,000 hours. Don't try this on your own, non-lawyers (and even most of you lawyers). 😏

We have no knowledge of anyone floating that idea. I doubt is would be considered by the IRS. The RAC process was part of a major initiative to reduce IRS staff time and commitment of resources. I also had a similar impact on plans and plan sponsors. The vast majority of plans now are on pre-approved documents and the IRS has drastically cut the number of determination letters they issue. Further, the concurrent cycles for types (DB, DC, 401(a), 403(b)...) of plans are scheduled to manage peak work loads for the IRS by spreading out pre-approved plan document approvals over time. On balance, the process was a big improvement. The current chaos springs from a very active period of Congressional actions that resulted in significant changes compressed into a short period of time. An overall RAC for a type of plan is very active for the IRS and document providers on the front-end (roughly the 2-3 years leading up to the release of IRS approval letters) of the cycle, and then very active for plan sponsors for the next 2 years through the restatement period. We had emergency legislation attributable to the pandemic in 2020 continuing into 2021, followed by multiple retirement plan proposed bills that were consolidated and passed in a massive new law, and now most recently a repeat performance. It is not surprising that the RAC now seems to follow a leisurely pace compared to the pace of legislation. Using specific legislation-based restatement periods would likely will be doomed to fail unless the pace of legislation moderates, or the IRS and industry comes up with a much more efficient document process. Imagine in some alternate reality if the IRS created a master plan document that included all of the required language to be a qualified plan, and then the document providers could create effectively adoption agreements that linked into that master basic plan document. (This would be similar to a plan today incorporating required provisions by referencing applicable regulations.) This would eliminate a substantial amount of the work that currently goes into creating, reviewing and approving pre-approved plan documents, and would preserve the ability of document providers to decide which choices will be made available under their documents.

Of course, on plan termination everyone is fully vested, so presumably the forfeitures in question are for individuals who terminated before the plan was terminated or a termination was being seriously considered by the employer. Also, unless the plan had an immediate forfeiture and buyback provision (which, admittedly, most do), some folks who left before termination may have forfeitable amounts that are still credited to their accounts and would become vested in connection with the termination.

The first questions are: (i) was the QDRO was submitted to the trial judge; (ii) was it signed by the trial judge; (iii) was a certified copy submitted to the Plan Administrator; (iv) was the QDRO approved by the Plan Administrator. You need to check the Courthouse file and with your attorney and with the Plan Administrator for the answer to these questions. The next question is what benefits are you talking about. You will normally have a share of your ex-husband's retirement benefits and that will normally not terminate on his remarriage or your remarriage unless that outcome is set forth in the QDRO or is a requirement of the underlying Plan documents. You should be able to contact the Plan Administrator and ask them if you will still receive your share of his retirement benefits and if any events could change that outcome. You may also be entitled to a survivor benefit (that you will receive after his death) if that is set forth in the QDRO, however in the case of survivor annuity you can lose your entitlement if: (i) you remarry; or (ii) you remarry prior to a certain age, usually 55; (iii) or if he remarries. It will all depend on the language of the QDRO and the underlying Plan document, and once again you should be able to find out the answers from the Plan Administrator. Many municipal plans for police, firefighters or correctional officers do not provide for survivor annuity benefits for former spouses, unless the employee retired during the marriage and elected such survivor annuity benefits and if such election survives the divorce pursuant to the plan documents. Once again, the Plan Administrator will be able to help you. You need to know that Plan Administrators owe a fiduciary duty to the employee/Participant and to the former spouse/Alternate Payee so they should answer any questions you may have. Note that employees of the City seem to contribute to 4 plans: Municipal Employees' Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago (MEABF) Laborers' & Retirement Board Employees' Annuity & Benefit Fund (LABF) Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund Firemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund so you need to know exactly what plan is involved and that should be set forth in the Court Order. See this page - https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/fin/supp_info/pension_funds.html Note that the Court Order is not a "QDRO" but a Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO). See the attached pamphlet that describes more the 4 plans. Also find attached a QILDRO Booklet and a Model QILDRO Order. Also a Fact Sheet that describes more than the four plans mentioned above. I hope this is helpful. DSG 11-20-23 QILDRO_BOOKLET_20211019 (1).pdf QILDRO_FORMS_2012_04.pdf QIDDRO - Chicago.pdf

I think relief is offered through VCP in these situations. I'd have to go back and check the latest IRS Rev Proc on EPCRS but I'm pretty sure the correction under VCP that would most likely be approved is making the missed payments with interest and request a waiver of the excise taxes with the submission. But I don't think DB RMDs are eligible for Self Correction. I'd like to be wrong on that so if someone has something where this would be allowed as a Self Correction, that would be great if they had a citation.

Well the "best way to fix" could vary from "somewhat easy" to "somewhat expensive" depending on the facts at circumstances, nature of the Partnership, how many employees there are in the partnership, how many other partners and what if any other Plans exist. I'd say your best course would be to contact a local ERISA attorney to at least get the scope of the issue and what your correction options will be.

IMHO, the big issue if you were even allowed to have a "solo 401(k)" (it is a marketing term, 401(k) is a 401(k)) just for yourself in a first place. Please elaborate the specifics on the business situation.

Are you a partner in a partnership getting a K-1 and set up a plan just for yourself? I think we need to back up and make sure we understand the problem.

A. It's after the termination date so no new contributions should be allowed. B. As Bri notes, the only "personal contribution" (huh?) in this scenario would be an after-tax contribution, which apparently is not permitted and often problematic. C. I doubt the participant asking has a clue about it and are likely asking about a tax-deductible contribution of some sort. This should be squashed. Caveat: A self-employed person (sole prop or partner) can make contributions from his or her own funds. If it is the/an owner asking, then it might warrant more thought, although the term date has passed.

It depends on if the plan allows after-tax contributions outside of payroll deduction, and that the termination date hasn't already passed.

FWIW, I have seen governmental QDRO's where the AP forfeits benefits if they remarry. As QDROphile said, you need to review your QDRO to know if your remarriage would impact your benefits.

You have to know what the plan says and what the QDRO says. As a general principle, a remarriage by either the participant or the participant’s former spouse after the plan approves and recognizes the QDRO will not cause an alternate payee to lose the awarded interest. For example, most plans will not qualify an order that provides for lapse of interest upon remarriage. However, especially with government plans, what happens in any particular case depends on plan terms and the terms of the QDRO. And many things can affect the actual amount received under the interest awarded under the QDRO. See the most recent message before yours in this category.

Depends on what the plan says for allocation conditions - it could also include people that terminated during the year. Also, pay attention to timing, when the forfeitures occur and when plan says they are to be allocated. If you're holding forfeitures that should have been allocated at 12/31/2022 and want to allocate them at a plan termination date of 11/30/2023 only those active on such date, that is an issue. Read the plan, follow its terms, and just treat your plan termination date as your latest plan year end and you should find out exactly what you should do or should have done.

My favorite Benefitslink quote of all time. I saved this for 16 years now!!

While the 60-90 day advanced notice of intent to terminate is not required for non-PBGC plan, I'm unaware of any circumstances where you can retroactively terminate any ERISA covered retirement plan. That is the termination date has to at least be concurrent with or after the signing the of the amendment terminating the plan. In some cases advanced notice to participants under ERISA 204(h) may be applicable to certain plans.