Leaderboard

Of the firms that publish a yearly table of inflation-adjusted amounts, many of us select and omit elements grounded on one’s audience’s or one’s own interests. For example, my November 1 one-pager includes § 72(t)(2)(K)(ii)(I) / distribution to a domestic abuse victim and 414(v)(7)(E) / catch-up deferral must be Roth, but omits anything about a small-employer credit. In my table, I show not only what changed but also what’s not adjusted, whether because the element has no inflation-adjusting provision or didn’t meet a rounding threshold. Notice 2024-80 states: 1. “The annual compensation limitation under section 45E(f)(2)(C) for employees excluded from the calculation of the additional small employer pension plan startup cost credit for certain employer contributions is $105,000.” 2. “The Roth catch-up wage threshold for 2024, which under section 414(v)(7)(A) is used to determine whether an individual’s catch-up contributions to an applicable employer plan (other than a plan described in section 408(k) or (p)) for 2025 must be designated Roth contributions, remains $145,000.” 3. “The limitation under section 72(t)(2)(K)(ii)(I) for eligible distributions to victims of domestic abuse from applicable eligible retirement plans is increased from $10,000 to $10,300.” BenefitsLink regularly publishes the IRS’s notice the same morning it’s posted on the IRS’s “drop” webpage for prepublication releases. https://benefitslink.com/search/index.cgi?datasource=MYDB&textQuery=2024-80 So, even if you like the convenience, formatting, and style of some firms’ tables, to find what they omit you can check the primary source.

@Peter Gulia Peter, I almost always put full contact data (address, voice number, email) in the signature blocks of stipulated QDROs, in addition to the addresses given earlier in an order, and I provide them again in cover letters to plans when I send all certified orders to them. Because most all QDROs are sealed orders here in Washington, they're not on the court’s public record. In cases in which a protection order is in place (sadly there are more and more of them), I leave the protected party's address and other contact data out of an order and give PAs full contact information for the protected party in the cover letter alongside the admonitions to not disclose the protected party's data. Like David, I always advise parties to stay in contact with PAs as well. If there is a QDRO on file, a PA can also contact the attorney who wrote a QDRO to ask for updated contact information. Most attorneys will keep client files for six years, sometimes longer, depending on the circumstances.

Has the spouse evaluated, applying Internal Revenue Code § 414 as amended by SECURE 2022 § 315, whether her business might not be a part of the same employer as her husband’s business? And, if so, might not have been a part of the same employer for plan years that began after December 31, 2023?

Perhaps all in this discussion recognize that the law is ambiguous, and open to many possible interpretations. We all suggest a retirement plan’s sponsor or administrator seek its lawyer’s advice. A plan’s sponsor might want its lawyer’s advice about whether a change is contrary to ERISA § 204 or another provision of ERISA’s title I. A plan’s sponsor might want its lawyer’s advice about whether the plan’s governing documents, including the plan’s ERISA § 402(b)(3) plan-amendment procedure and any discretions granted, permit or preclude the to-be-considered change. Even if a plan’s governing documents do not preclude a change, a plan’s sponsor might want its lawyer’s advice about whether a change is within or beyond ERISA § 204(g), including § 204(g)(3). A plan’s administrator might want its lawyer’s advice about whether a change is valid or invalid. A plan’s administrator might want its lawyer’s advice about whether a fiduciary’s duty of obedience to the plan’s governing documents does not apply to the extent that a document is inconsistent with ERISA’s title I. See ERISA § 404(a)(1)(D). A cautious plan administrator might recognize that it bears a responsibility that does not apply to the plan’s sponsor (in its role as the plan’s sponsor). Before last summer, one might have presumed a Federal court would apply Chevron deference to the Treasury’s interpretive rule. After the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright Enterprises decision, an Article III court may respect and consider an executive agency’s interpretation of a statute, but might not be persuaded by such an interpretation. How to manage uncertainties and risks (and how much or how little advice an advisee seeks) are an advisee’s choices. (I don’t intend anything I’ve written in this discussion to state or suggest a prediction about what a court might find. Rather, my points are that a court might or might not be persuaded by the Treasury’s interpretation when interpreting ERISA’s title I.)

First, if you were a lawyer who advised the could-be alternate payee not to object to a divorce decree entered before he had obtained payment from the participant’s retirement plan or at least had obtained the plan administrator’s approval of an order as a qualified domestic relations order, you might your lawyer’s advice about your professional conduct. Also, you might want your liability insurer’s guidance about what steps to take or avoid to not prejudice your defenses against claims. If the could-be alternate payee’s divorce lawyer was someone else, you might consider whether the scope of your engagement includes or omits evaluating your client’s claims against that lawyer. If it’s omitted, consider some writing to inform your client that it’s omitted, and to suggest that your client get that advice from another lawyer. About a repair, consider seeking a court’s order that names as the alternate payee the former spouse (using only that person’s name), and recites that the order relates to the former spouse’s marital property rights. But consider this after considering the advice and guidance from the preceding steps. This discussion is not advice to anyone.

Luke Bailey, thank you for your observations. And for causing me to look up the word stimmy. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/stimmy-stimulus-words-were-watching About whether an ESA is a pension benefit: ERISA § 3(45) defines an ESA as “established and maintained as part of an individual account plan”, which ERISA § 3(34) defines as a pension plan. ERISA § 3(45)(A) further defines or describes an ESA as “a designated Roth account[.]” ERISA § 110(a) grants the Secretary of Labor power to “prescribe an alternative method for satisfying any requirement of this part with respect to any pension plan, or class of pension plans (including pension-linked emergency savings account features within a pension plan)[.]” ERISA § 404(c)(6) provides another situation in which a default investment is treated as a participant’s exercise of control. ERISA § 404(c)(6) applies “[f]or purposes of paragraph (1),” which refers to a pension plan. ERISA § 801(a)(1) provides that a sponsor of an individual-account plan “may include” an ESA in such a pension plan. ERISA § 801(c)(2)(A) commands that an ESA feature, if provided, “be included in the plan document of the individual account [pension] plan.” An ESA contribution may be a subject of a matching contribution that is a part of an individual-account pension plan. Under ERISA § 801(e), a plan with an ESA must allow, on a participant’s severance from employment (or the plan sponsor’s end of the ESA feature), a transfer from her ESA balance into another designated Roth account under the individual-account pension plan. An ESA may involve an automatic-contribution arrangement. These need ERISA § 514(e)’s (or ERISA § 802’s) preemption of States’ wage-payment laws. Although preemption can apply regarding a welfare-benefit plan, it’s not obvious that an ESA’s benefits are fairly described as “medical, surgical, or hospital care or benefits, or benefits in the event of sickness, accident, disability, death or unemployment, or vacation benefits, apprenticeship or other training programs, or day care centers, scholarship funds, or prepaid legal services[.]” See ERISA § 3(1)(A). Although Congress might have power to supersede State law regarding something that is neither kind of employee benefit, a court might find that a provision stated in part 5 or part 8 of subtitle B of title I of ERISA refers to an employee benefit ERISA § 3 describes. A plan’s administrator may consolidate notices about an ESA with notices under ERISA § 404(c)(5)(B) and ERISA § 514(e)(3). As I read ERISA § 206(d), that a pension plan includes an ESA feature does not alter the plan’s recognition of a qualified domestic relations order. But this might be no more burdensome regarding an ESA than for any other aspect of a plan that permits a QDRO distribution before the participant’s earliest retirement age. What’s different is that an ESA feature might bring in some participants who otherwise might have no account balance for a QDRO to reach.