Leaderboard

An IRA can not be part of a qualified plan. A Roth IRA can not be rolled over into a Roth account in a qualified plan. Just set up the new account. Do it right.

I would think twice (thrice) before taking this assignment. The facts presented do not bode well for a good consultant/client relationship.

100% this something that an experienced ERISA law firm should handle. This is NOT the type of VCP to cut your teeth on, even if you as a TPA want to start offering VCP services and have staff with the proper enrollment (CPA, ERPA, ETC) to do so.

Personal opinion is you use only the non-union prior year ADP and ACP. Those are numbers for the disaggregated component plans and you still have that for non-union, just a larger population for 2025. Look at it this way, what if union covered employees were excluded from the plan before, now enter 1/1/2025 when union is dissolved. Is there any question you'd use the 2024 ADP and ACP from those (non-union only) participants? You look at that union disaggregation as if it was a separate plan.

To David Rigby’s questions about what might lurk in the deal documents, someone might consider adding, for each might-be provision: Is the supposed provision merely a wishful statement? If a provision is somebody’s obligation, exactly which person, whether artificial or human, is obligated? Is the obligation consistent with, or contrary to, applicable law? Or relevant law? Even if not contrary to law, is the obligation legally enforceable? By which person? A? B? Some other person, whether artificial or human? This is not advice to anyone. And Santo Gold might wonder: Does my company have a current service agreement with A? Does my company have a current service agreement with B? Does my company desire to revise either service agreement, or both?

A few thoughts (there are probably other relevant questions): Are the facts presented accurate? Are the facts presented complete? Did the buy-sell agreement contain any provisions relevant to the future of the plan? Did the buy-sell agreement alter (or attempt to alter) any plan provision of the A plan? Does A still exist or is it a wholly owned subsidiary of B? What does the A plan say about a distributable event? Does anyone in authority at B know what's going on? Has legal counsel for B made any statements about this?

Well, the 31% limit is going to be 117,800. The DC portion of that can't go over 95,000. If there is a mandatory DB amount that's nonzero, that eats into the 117,800.

Usually, I would not add anything to the responses of the wise folks on this thread but I have to commend the OP for questioning the response they received from "AI". While AI may give one a starting point, AI responses can be flat out wrong so, in my view, AI responses should always be viewed extremely critically. I fully agree with @Peter Gulia and @austin3515. I would like to add a couple of thoughts. OP notes that their initial query is in response to IRS Notice CP1348. The IRS's purview does not cover the entire universe of whether plan amounts can be used to pay penalties. So what occurs in an IRS Notice regarding prohibited transactions may not be the end of the story. Their purview only covers whether there is a prohibited transaction under 4975 and the consequences under the tax code. @austin3515 and, ultimately, @Peter Gulia look at the entire universe in bringing up the views of the DOL under ERISA. Also note that the concept of "plan assets" is an ERISA concept monitored by the DOL. In my experience, under ERISA, civil penalties assessed against fiduciaries, plan sponsors, or other parties for some sort of legal violations or prohibited transaction cannot be paid using plan assets. Plan assets must be used exclusively to provide benefits to participants and beneficiaries and to defray "reasonable administrative expenses." I have not researched this recently but my understanding is the DOL maintains that paying penalties from plan assets is not a reasonable expense and is strictly prohibited. DOL has stated that penalties under ERISA 502(i) must be paid by the party in interest involved in the transaction not the plan, and using plan assets to pay penalties is likely a breach of fiduciary duty. Also, regarding restoration or disgorgement as @Peter Gulia brings up, I have colleagues who distinguish between restoration/disgorgement, which are remedial in nature, as opposed to penalties, which are punitive in nature. They seem to imply that plan assets could be used for restoration or disgorgement but I must be thick-headed because I don't see it. How can you use plan assets to restore something to the plan? disgorge from plan? There may be circumstances that I am just not thinking of but it seems like a zero sum game.

Note that under ERISA a valid QDRO does not require the signatures of both parties. The essential legal requirement is that the order be issued or approved by a court of competent jurisdiction. However, judges normally insist on both signatures to confirm that the document accurately reflects the parties' divorce settlement before they will sign it…. having both signatures is the standard to avoid a contested court hearing but sometimes it is necessary to file a DRO only one signature (e.g., a former spouse refuses to cooperate, so the other spouse petitions the court to issue the order regardless of their lack of consent) but in these cases the judge usually requires that they show that the QDRO aligns with the existing court-ordered property division. If the OP wants to contest the property division, that’s a bigger issue than a QDRO

First, an overview observation, and then an attempt to give a helpful answer. As someone that you might refer to as a QDRO lawyer, I see a lot of information and query that I think is very unlikely to matter in terms of determining whether or not the domestic relations order is a QDRO, including different vintages of plan document. A 401(k) account is a relatively easy thing to divide from a qualification perspective, assuming conventional liquid assets. Plan terms usually have no substantial effect. Because of the excess of text that appears to be irrelevant, it seems that there is a lot of confusion. The confusion also appears involve identification of the relevant “fiduciary” or fiduciaries who will be responsible for cutting through all of the noise and making decisions about the domestic relations order as qualified or not. The usual circumstances relating to a QDRO involve two pieces: (1) what part of the 401(k) account will the alternate payee get? This has everything to do with the divorce settlement and not necessarily anything to do with the terms of the 401(k) plan (except maybe vesting). The plan is totally agnostic about what the alternate payee should receive, except that the alternate payee cannot receive an amount or type of benefit that the plan does not provide for (which is a qualification matter and almost never an issue with a 401(k) plan). For determining the amount that the alternate payee should receive in the greater scheme of things, the parties need domestic relations lawyers to come up with a domestic relations order that I will refer to as the “divorce decree” which may or may not be the domestic relations order that is submitted to the plan to end up with a QDRO (probably not; see the explanation below about the role of the QDRO lawyer). (2) A domestic relations order (DRO) must be submitted to the plan in order to tell the plan what the divorce decree specifies to be the interest in the plan awarded to the alternate payee. The DRO must set forth the information that the relevant statutes require, which neatly corresponds to the information that the plan administrator (or other QDRO fiduciary) actually needs to administer the DRO and give the alternate payee what the divorce decree has determined that the alternate payee should get. Unfortunately, a QDRO lawyer (or other competent professional) may be required to make sure that the formal qualification requirements are satisfied. A QDRO lawyer will be concerned with plan terms, but, as mentioned before, plan terms usually have little effect. An experienced QDRO lawyer can probably put together a perfectly good domestic relations order while being almost blind to plan terms — not that they actually would. A QDRO lawyer is indifferent to the settlement terms that relate to what the alternate payee “should” receive from a 401(k) plan as long as the “what” is expressed in the divorce decree as a dollar amount or a percentage of the account balance as of a particular date. Valuation dates may be a matter affected by plan terms, which gets us to: (3) A common arrangement is for the domestic relations lawyer to have an association of sorts with a QDRO lawyer (or other professional) to make sure that the divorce decree defines the alternate payee’s interest in the plan in a way that can be implemented by the plan, such as by specifying a valuation date that is workable for the plan. The QDRO lawyer then drafts a domestic relations order that meet the qualification requirements to become a QDRO. So, the answer to your question is: both, especially since there seems to be so much confusion about what matters or not, and people seem to be enmeshed in a probably unnecessary push/pull. I am not unmindful of the misfortune that something that is conceptually quite simple ends up needing the assistance of expensive professionals to make things “right” whether or not anyone is made happy. Important addendum: No mention has been made of an extremely important document that plans are required to have: written procedures on qualified domestic relations orders (QDRO Procedures). If I were to have only one document from the plan, that is the one that I would request. However, while that document should be the most important and informative of all plan documents, that document often sucks and will disappoint. The QDRO Procedures may be incorporated into an SPD.