Does anyone know if the Plan can limit the AP to less than 18 months for getting the DRO qualified before it distributes funds to the participant?

I am an AP. One plan told me they would give me only 1 month to get the DRO signed by a judge and then would not protect my interest in the Plan after that unless I kept renewing my request monthly for up to 3 months. I am concerned because the court process can take months especially in a contested situation.

I also asked them for their written QDRO rules and the contact person at the Plan wrote me a letter that listed their requirements for a QDRO. Is this sufficient? Aren't they required to have formal written QDRO procedures on file with the DOL?

Also, what does it mean that "any determination that an order is a QDRO that is made after the close of the 18-month period is to be applied prospectively only?"

When does the 18 month period start to run?

Employer is Self Employed and has 2 employees.

Employer does not provide health insurance.

Employer increased wages for 2 employees in order to assist them with purchasing their own policies.

Employer purchases his own policy but has the company pay for his premiums only.

In addition, he takes a credit on his Form 1040.

Is this allowed or is this discrimation?

Employer is Self Employed and has 2 employees.

Employer does not provide health insurance.

Employer increased wages for 2 employees in order to assist them with purchasing their own policies.

Employer purchases his own policy but has the company pay for his premiums only.

In addition, he takes a credit on his Form 1040.

Is this allowed or is this discrimation?

In determining when a rehab plan default schedule may be involuntarily imposed, do we disregard extensions of the CBA after the plan has entered into critical status? I believe the reference in 432 is to the natural expiration date.

A plan sponsor assumed a participant would be terminated as of 4/1/2010. On 4/1/2010 the participant submitted distribution paperwork to take a direct payment of the funds. Taxes were withheld, distribution was processed as normal.

Turns out, the employee never terminated... So, now we (the TPA) are trying to figure out what to do. Here is my assumption:

Participant writes a check to the plan for the full taxable amount of the distribution (including the 20% withheld). A 1099 would be issued with a tax withholding amount (20% of the distribution amt), but $0.00 under taxable amount and distribution amount. This way he would be able to deduct the withheld amount, but not be taxed for a distribution.

Is this just "the easy way" of fixing this (thus, making it the wrong way)? We suspect it will be difficult if not impossible to get the withholding amount back from the IRS.

This is very odd. I have a client who's three docs have decided not to fund their Safe Harbor match true-up amounts. They have contributed the full Safe Harbor match to all NHCEs. Can they do this? Part of their Safe Harbor match has been contributed....it's just the true-up that they do not want to fund.

thanks for all comments on this.

A couple are married and have no children.

Each have a HDHP with individual coverage through their employers.

Each have their own HSA.

Can each deposit up to $3,050 for 2010?

since they file a joint return, does that make them subject to the "family" limit of $6,150?

Not sure what their limits would be?

The LRM to my knowledge are just suggested plan language that the IRS will approve in many cases when reviewing a plan. But they are not mandatory or actual law or regulations.

Is that correct?

Thanks

How are TPA's and document providers handling loan policies in a multi vendor and product environment? For example you could have a plan that has a 403b1 annuity and b7 custodial account with one provider, and then contracts, some active some inactive, with multiple vendors, and all allow 2 or 3 loans. Does the plan document then defer to the underlying contract, or are you actually creating a loan policy with each contract's provisions stated therein - number of loans, interest rate, repayment provisions, sources - they could all differ among contracts!

The written plan document under the final 403b regs is making this a challenge!

I have had an incident in with Relius for over a week with no response yet, so I am wondering if anyone else has had this issue. I have had several clients submit their 5500's through Web Client and receive a follow-up email saying the filing status was now "processing stopped". However, when I go to the DOL Efast website and search 5500's, their 5500 shows up and is there to view. So, my question is .... is this just an issue with Web Client and should I consider my clients good to go if the 5500 shows up on the DOL site???

Last night, I had 4 clients get a new status of denied. Those clients are not showing up on the DOL site. However, I can not tell what is wrong as the Web Client is showing no errors in the processing status report.

I'm getting pretty fed up with this whole process. It has been a fiasco. I hate to say it, but EGTRRA restatements were a heck of a lot more fun than this garbage.

Have an end of year valuation for 2008 (as of 12/31/2008) and switched to beginning of year in 2009 (as of 1/1/2009). The amount of the excess contribution for the 2009 Schedule SB line 11a is carried forward from line 38 of 2008 Schedule SB. Line 11b wants the effective interest rate for 2008 to add interest to this excess contribution.

I believe that they would be no interest added to this amount since the carryover from 2008 is as of 12/31/2008 and the values for the 2009 Schedule SB is as of 1/1/2009. I am using Relius and if I put 0% it gives me a warning that if cannot be blank if 11a has a value. If you put the effective interest rate in 11b it adds a year of interest. Am I missing something?

Using Relius Government Forms to do a Schedule SB. Does anyone know of a problem with filing with EFAST2 for the following warnings from the Relius validation check;

if 20a is yes (funding shortfall) it is looking for a response to 20c(1), 20c(2), 20c(3) and 20c(4) even though less than 100 participants. I believe this should be left blank;

Line 34 is coming up with a message that it is not adding up correctly. The math is correct but it still comes up with a warning;

Line 22 (Weighted average retirement age). It looks like it is looking for an attachment if there is any value on line 22. If the retirement age is 65 and and everyone has a retirement age of 65 do you need to do an attachment?

Defines change in control as sale of 70% of the business.

Clearly the % is OK, but could be ambiguous because it could be interpreted in a noncompliant way. For example: could have a series of asset sales over a period longer than 12 months, such as 20% sale 1/1, 10% sale 7/1 and 40% following 2/1, which are stepped together to hit 70%.

Is this problematic or should the definition be amended under the document correction program?

if the plan is a new plan, effective 1/1/2009 but was not submitted by April 30, can it still be submitted today for an EGTRRA letter?

Has anyone heard of vesting defined as being employed on the last day of the year- here is wording from the SPD.

"Core contributions are 100% vested after you have completed two years of vesting service. You are credited with a

year of vesting service on each December 31 in which you are employed."

Is this a form of elapsed time?

Thanks

Need help understanding Permissive Aggregation.

Employer Sponsors three Plans.

Total Work Force in Division A & B is 53

2 HCEs and 25 NHCEs in division A

1 HCEs and 25 NHCEs in division B

Plan 1 - Safe Harbor 401(k) Plan for EEs of Divison A (satisfies 401(a)(4) on stand alone basis)

Plan 2 - PS Plan for EEs of Division B

Plan 3 - Cash Balance Plan for EEs of Division B

Can the employer elect to aggregate Plan 1 with Plan 2 to satisfy 401(a)(4) - Rate Group General test

Thanks for your help in advance

A 403b plan has a participating employer who is being acquired by another entity. The affected employees will no longer participate in the plan. If new employer sponsors a 403b plan, can the new employer mandate a plan to plan sponsor from prior 403b plan into new employer's 403b plan or is this transfer at the participant level only? Is there such thing as a 403b spin-off?

Thanks

PS assets are in group contract.

Our ESOP makes distributions in a single sum, but we want to change to installments. An exception under the regulations allows an ESOP to eliminate a single sum with respect to benefits subject to 409(h)(1)(B)...

My concern is that 409(h)(1)(B) suggests that the plan must make distributions in stock (not cash) in order to be able to rely on the exception in the regulations. Our plan makes distributions in cash, not stock. Should I not read this literally so I can use the exception under the regulations to be able to make distributions in installments rather than a single sum? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

I have a new,small client who was Top Heavy for 2009. The owners deferrred $600 and $1800 in 2009 before being notified that they would fail ADP testing. The Top Heavy min is for 2009 $4000. They want to know if they can reverse their 2009 deferrals so that no TH min would be required. They are an LLC taxed as a partnership and they have not filed for 2009. They think they can just "reclassify" the deferrals.

Obviously, this is not a mistake of fact. They just want to avoid the TH min contribution. Can they do this?

Assume a long term incentive plan provides for payment by March 15 following the end of a three year cycle but provides for earlier vesting (but payment date does not change) due to Disabiltiy (assume 409A compliant definition). Does this mean that this plan can not meet the short-term deferral exception even for those who never become disabled? Assume that a disability occurs only once every 10 years. Does that matter? I can see an IRS argument that becuase the plan provides for the "possibility" of a payment that won't be a short-term deferal (if a disability occurs for example in the first year of the cycle), there can be no short-term deferral but this does not seem like the right answer to me.

Same question but assume instead of disabiltiy that earlier vesting (but not payment) occurs at a separation if the participant is retirement eligible (say at some combination of service and age)? I would argue that as long as the participant would not be eligible to retire prior to the third year of the cycle, that particpant's award would qualify as a short-term deferral.

Any thoughts? Thanks for any insight.