Leaderboard

You might want to look at the 5500 filing that is in public domain. The plan provisions are a required attachment to the Schedule SB. They won't be as detailed as the SPD, but they should define the early retirement provisions. https://www.efast.dol.gov/5500Search/

There is a special catch-up available in 403(b) plans that is designed to allow participants to make up for some years in which they didn't maximize their contributions. I don't deal with 403(b) plans enough to feel comfortable explaining it here, but you can research it if you're interested. There is nothing along those lines for 401(k) plans however.

Please read. https://www.planadviser.com/fidelity-goes-national-401k-income-annuity-offering/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=PAdash The law as it stands today is that a Participant in an ERISA qualified defined contribution Plan can take a distribution from the Plan without giving notice to or obtaining the consent of his/her spouse or former spouse. But the time when such a distribution can be made has always been defined as the time the Participant terminates employment with the Plan Sponsor (e.g. retires or is fired). I have always stressed to my colleagues at the Bar the importance of getting the QDRO entered by the Court at the same time that the JAD is entered and sending a certified copy to the Plan Administrator ASAP. I have always suggested that the moment they know that there is a pension or retirement benefit that will be addressed by the parties in an MSA or by the Court at trial, send every Plan Administrator (defined contribution or defined benefit) a Notice of Adverse Claim/Interest - see attached template and cover letter. Send a copy of the Complaint and a copy of draft QDROs. Plan Administrators are not required to take any action, but their lawyers usually suggest that, now that they have "actual notice", they don't want to find themselves involved in a lawsuit and should freeze everything in place until the parties have reached an agreement or the Court has entered a QDRO, vel non. Now Fidelity has a new product - Fidelity’s Guaranteed Income Direct, now available to Plan Sponsors nationally and applicable to 401(k), 403(b) and 457(b) Plans. Participants can purchase an income annuity directly through an employer’s plan benefit from a third-party insurer selected by the employer. The assets Participant's assets leave the retirement plan and go to the insurer for purchase, with monthly cash flow views available through the benefits platform, NetBenefits. The article doesn't mention the Secure 2.0 act that became effective on January 1, 2023, but it is consistent with what I have read. So let's say that the Participant retires and elects the new annuity option offered by Fidelity. The parties are still happily married. No divorce is on the horizon. But matters deteriorate and somebody files suit for divorce. Are the prospective Alternate Payee and the Court bound by the annuity option selected by the Participant? Can a QDRO supersede the annuity election and enter a QDRO awarding an immediately payable lump sum? Will that sponsor of the annuity, e.g. MetLife, Pacific Life, Prudential Financial and Western & Southern Financial Group, be required to accept and act in accordance with a QDRO? What if the Participant elects a 10 year life only annuity and dies 2 years later. Are the balance of the annuity payments wiped out thereby destroying what should have been the Alternate Payee's interest in the Plan benefits? Will the annuity contain the equivalent of survivor annuity benefits options and be treated like a QJSA in a defined benefit plan? I don't know the answers to any of these questions. But I can say with confidence that whoever drafted and enacted Secure 2.0 had zero experience in family law or in the allocation of defined contribution plans. Maybe some answers can be found at: - https://www.fidelity.com/annuities/overview?imm_pid=700000001009713&immid=100732_SEA&imm_eid=ep78286740705&utm_source=GOOGLE&utm_medium=paid_search&utm_account_id=700000001009713&utm_campaign=FLIA&utm_content=58700008578251620&utm_term=guaranteed+income+plan&utm_campaign_id=100732&utm_id=71700000115292309&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiAqsitBhDlARIsAGMR1Rh1PyZfQVskEw0lmOAxtS99Cr3vuwZ2vfGwuQ5eP6C5UtR8aKQcnHAaAnUsEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds David Notice of Adverse Claim-Interest.pdf Notice of Adverse Claim- Interest Cover Letter (2).pdf

Is the recordkeeper also the plan document provider? Just because it can be changed 'at any time' does not be it can be retroactive. I agree with them, barring some unusual additional information, I would view going from a full year match computation period to a per payroll computation period as a cut-back, especially for a plan year that has already ended. Have you calculated the true-up? Is it a lot of money (I know that's relative)? Especially if it isn't a lot, or most of the true-up is going to the HCE or owners, perhaps the sponsor should focus on the positive aspects of a true-up and not the negative.

The 1/15 would be from 65-60. If she commenced retirement payments at age 62, they would be 80% of her benefit at 65.

Nobody on his blog can answer your questions without knowing more information than you have provided. You have referred to a "QDRO" but it is my experience that lay people (and Judges) use that acronym generically even it does not relate to an ERISA qualified benefit. They use it when discussing as IRA and plans sponsored by Federal, state county and municipal plans, none of which are covered by ERISA. The rules are not the same. Do you live in a state that deals with "marital property" or a state that deals with "community property" or in Louisiana. Did the agreement or the decree of divorce use the term "marital share", and if so did it define how that "marital share" was to be computed? You have not stated whether or not the plan is a defined contribution plan (like a 401(k)), or a defined benefit plan where you retire after a certain number of years of service with a certain income history and are eligible for a lifetime annuity and your former spouse may be entitled to a survivor annuity. I am guessing that your plan is a 401(k) plan (a defined contribution plan) but there is no way to advise you without seeing the exact terms of what was supposed to be in the QDRO. Does it state a "Valuation Date"? Does it adjust the amount payable to your former spouse for gains, losses and investment experience? If it does not reflect such an adjustment does the law of your state take the position that adjustment for gains, losses and investment experience are implicit even if not addressed? Will it even be possible for the Plan Administrators to may such an adjustment, or will records no longer be available or has the plan changed Third Party Administrators (TPA) who cannot or will not go back prior to the date that they became TPAs? If your plan is a 401(k) and you have retired, Federal law permits you to take out the full amount in your account without notice to, or consent by, your former spouse -- unless the plan provides otherwise -- or unless the plan has actual notice of your agreement or the judgment of divorce and have been told by their attorney will sit on the money until the parties reach an agreement or the court tells them what to do. If your plan is a 401(k), it may decide to wash its hands of people who take 14 years to protect their rights and file an interpleader and deposit the money in the Registry of the Court. In a defined contribution plan like the 401(k), it will be important to know how outstanding loans will be addressed and whether or not you have made hardship distributions and how much of your account is "vested" and whether you have a Traditional and/or a Roth component of your account. Does your 401(k) plan permit an immediate lump sum rollover or distribution to your former spouse, or is she required to wait until you retire? Do you live in a state where the 14-year delay has resulted in the court losing jurisdiction to enter a QDRO pursuant to a state statute of limitations, or the concept of laches, or because the period to ask for the QDRO expired per the Rules of Procedure, or some other reason? If your plan is a pension plan and you remarry and then retire (in that order), your former spouse will lose all rights to a survivor annuity benefit no matter what was the agreement of the parties or what was in the divorce decree or what is set forth in the QDRO. In some states if the agreement or the parties or the judgment of divorce does not explicitly mention survivor annuity benefits, the former spouse will not get them....period. Is your plan sponsored by a church or religious organization or a labor union? They tend to have strange rules. It is important to know the exact name of the plan? Don't tell me, for example, "Lockheed", since that company has 49 different pension and retirement plans. If you wife was represented by an attorney, the attorney should be sued for malpractice and report to the State Grievance Commission for incompetence. It may be too late for that (statute of limitations) but more and more states are adopting the "discovery rule." So DP66, you are not going to receive any useful information here, and you may some wrong information, even from me. If you want a correct answer you need to ask the right questions and you haven't done that. If you want to cross out all of the personal information in the agreement or in the divorce decree except for the name of the e Plan, and submit it to this message board, I will take a look at it and give you my thoughts. DSG

W4-P is for periodic payments. W4-R is for nonperiodic payments. And it's very difficult to not spell "periodic" as "idiotic" most of the time.

The NEC does not have a limit other than those mentioned by belgarath. The safe harbor match has limits some of which are tied to not matching on deferrals above 6% of pay. But outside of 415 I 'm pretty sure a if you want a match something like of 400% of the first 6% that would still qualify as a safe harbor formula.

Are you sure about this? Please go and read the document carefully. I have a feeling it actually says that it excludes non-resident aliens with no US-source income. If they are working in the US then they are not excludable under this definition regardless of their immigration or residency status.

Plan excludes non-resident aliens with no U.S. source income, right? This is someone who doesn't live in the US and also isn't a US citizen?

If you give me Ohtani's contract, I would be THRILLED AND DELIGHTED to pay any and all taxes that might be due. Overall taxes are whatever, so what if they are, say, 60%? If I "only" get 40% of my $700 million, I'm still getting $280 million. Of course, that would be a big cut from what I make in the TPA business... I wish I had a tax problem like this - I think I could handle it.