Leaderboard

Rev. Rul. 84-69 (emphasis added):

Are you the participant or the Alternate Payee? I assume you are the Alternate Payee? If so, the Plan Administrator will not pay you without a valid QDRO. If the QDRO was originally rejected and never corrected, then the plan has no authority to pay anything to you. The Plan Administrator is not bound by the divorce decree. There must be a QDRO in order for them to separate the participant's benefit. Generally a plan will have QDRO Procedures that determine what happens in this situation. My experience is they will give the AP a certain amount of time to produce a valid QDRO (like 180 days), if nothing is provided, they will just go ahead and pay the participant the entire benefit. That said, it sounds like the participant isn't requesting anything at this time, so likely nothing will happen until then. Short answer, you will need to retain a lawyer to draft a DRO, which you then submit to the Plan Administrator for approval, making it a QDRO. A life annuity of $140/month starting at 65 is worth about $20,000 based on standard life expectancy. Your call if that is worth the cost to hire a lawyer.

It is permissible, it is not required, and there are pros and cons. Some companies fund the SHNEC with each payroll because the contribution is 100% vested and not subject to other allocation conditions (like a last day rule). They do this as a convenience and feel it helps them manage their finances. The TPA should know better than to say there is no "true-up". The SHNEC is not like a match. A plan can specify a time period for funding the match that is more frequent than annually. The SHNEC requires each participant receives must the the SHNEC percent of annual plan compensation. Payroll is notorious for having adjustments from pay period to pay period, and for having challenges reporting plan compensation should the definition of plan compensation be something other than 3401(a) W-2 compensation. The prudent plan administrator, payroll and TPA all would double check after year-end that everyone received the SHNEC they were due.

It is not protected. We went through the same scenario with a physician group with brokerage accounts spread across a dozen brokerage firms and following a merger into the practice of another physician group that used different brokerage accounts. There was a Committee that was the designated Plan Administrator and Trustees that presented the idea to discontinue SDBAs to the Board (which basically was all of the physicians). The Board adopted a resolution to eliminate the SDBAs. We communicated with each physician with an SDBA about the transition process and set a hard deadline (4 months away) by which time all accounts had to be transferred into the plan's investment menu. The deadline allowed time for individual's to unwind any investments or trading schemes (for example, one individual was trading covered calls). A couple of individuals had some favorite assets and were eligible to withdraw their accounts, and so they arranged to move those assets out of the plan. It was tedious, but mission accomplished.

Beyond tax law: A deferred compensation plan is a contract between the employer or service recipient and the employee or nonemployee service provider. If that contract specifies when an amount is credited to an obligee’s account, the employer ought to follow the obligation the employer made. If the relevant document is not specific, the obligor ought to act in good faith, with fair dealing, and reasonably so as not to deprive the obligee of the benefit of the parties’ bargain. This is not advice to anyone.

I think he just meant whatever way his pay is reported, W2 versus Sch. C. But you don't take 2/12 of it just because everyone else stopped working then.

It seems that the answer will hinge on how the last day rule is written in each plan. There would be no separation from service as long as the employee is working for a participating employer. Consider if the last day rule may be written to say that the employee must be actively employed on the last day by Employer A to get an allocation from Employer A, with a similar provision for Employer B.

This sounds odd to me because a solo 401k plan, by its nature and legal structure, does not (usually?) have the safe harbor feature that is found in traditional 401k plans because those rules ensure that the plan is not discriminating between the employees and HCEs or owners. Solo 401k plans are specifically structured for owner-only businesses without full-time employees (except the owner(s) and possibly their spouse(s)). If the owner(s) hire full time employees, they may want to implement a plan with safe-harbor features so they could contribute the safe harbor contributions without testing but that wouldn't let them provide an additional 21% nonelective contribution just for the owner(s) as any contributions in excess of the safe harbor would have to be tested under 401(a)(4). That said, back to your actual question, annual additions paid to a participant's account cannot exceed the lesser of: 100% of the participant's compensation, or $70,000 (assuming <age50) for 2025. But, as you state, there is also the deduction limit where an employer’s deduction for contributions to a defined contribution plan cannot be more than 25% of the compensation paid (or accrued) during the year to eligible employees participating in the plan. Since the 25% limit is on the employer's deduction for contributions to the plan it does not apply to the salary deferrals as the deduction for those deferrals is really for wages paid. See 404(n). So with $100K compensation, assuming these are W-2 wages, she can contribute $23,500 (assuming <50) and she as employer can contribute an aggregate employer contribution of $25K in 2025. Note that I am assuming these are W-2 wages. If her compensation is actually earned income, there will be a difference (see Self-employed individuals: Calculating your own retirement plan contribution and deduction | Internal Revenue Service). Also, this example assumes only one owner and no spousal compensation.

Are you saying that (in your example), the QACA contribution for 2025 has a 2 year vesting schedule and the QACA contribution for 2026 has a separate 2 year vesting schedule? Because if you are, that’s wrong and vesting like that hasn’t been allowed since the 80’s.

They can be, but not necessarily, and such should be closely examined in the person's state of residence (bankruptcy laws). The administrative burden - continuing restatements, interim amendments, 5500 filings - and associated costs should be weighed against any real (not perceived) difference in levels of protection.