austin3515

Well in a rabbi trust, it's registered to John Doe FBO the 457(f) Plan. FYI, it sounds like Nationwide was able to do this, in case anyone else has trouble.

I know all of that, but try explaining it to the broker dealers who won't touch these things.

I've had advisors end up having a really hard time figuring out where to "hold" the money ofr 457(f) plans, and in some cases 457b plans. Anyone have any suggestions? These are usually 1 person plans for me, so the "platforms" are out. We're looking for brokerage accounts. Anyone have any ideas? When opening just a regular brokerage account, are there any pitfalls/caveats? I'll take any advice.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p957/ar02.html#en_US_2013_publink1000291661 I just wanted to share this with everyone in case they were not aware of its existence. It goes through all of the payroll reporting requirements for deferrals AND distributions. Extremely helpful. One of those documents prepared by the IRS that is written in English. Perfect examples. Simple terminology, etc. Well done!!

Balance forward plans are few and far between although I have a lot of "micro clients" where it's making a comeback out of a desire to avoid fee disclosure notices and QDIA notices. But probably 95% of DC plans are valued every day.

I could count on 1 hand the number of clients for which such a task would not make me cringe... Most of your clients? That's amazing. But even still, I still contend that even the people most affected by this should prefer to have the affect of QDRO be more or less known BEFORE it is executed. So let them decide whatever method they wish to figure the amount of the QDRO, but then express the QDRO in simple terms (i.e., fixed dollar or fixed percent). $50,000 for you! The way my "new QDRO" is written, no one really knows what they're going to get until you dig through the archives.

For real? This is a huge hardship. Try and get the balance on a platform for any participant you have on January 17th 1998 and let me know how that works out. I'll bet you have plans where you don't even know who had the money in 1998.

It is (thankfully) proposed and that's what I'm doing.

GMK, I'm going to the attorney and saying "forget it, no can do, give me an amount." I'll let you know what he says.

http://squaredawayblog.bc.edu/squared-away/breaking-up-the-pension-is-hard-to-do/ Here is the article referenced. I read these to be the means of coming up with the award amount, not formulas that should be listed in the QDRO.

But why not just take that into account, and split the remaining $100K 50/50, for $50,000., I get that they might want to take that into account, but let them go through that process as a means to tell me what each parties percentage is. And as the advisor to the Plan Administrator, I'm just not comfortable compiling all those variables. Anyone with me?

I'm used to seeing "the AP is hereby awarded 50% of the balance as of 6/30/2014, adjusted for gains or losses." The cookiness is that there is a pot of money and the only relevant question is out of that pot of money how much goes each party. Anytying else is just compliacating the matter...

Maybe I'm just too nitpicky, but I got two QDRO's in one week (both from Oklahoma, I think there is a connection here!) where the award is worded as follows: "50% of benefits accrued during the marriage, plus or minus any gain or loss on the award up to the date of distribution..." To which I responded to the attorneys, "That's just cooky. If you meant to say 50% of the account balance as of a date, you would have just said that." So what does this language even mean? For example, It seems to me that I would need to add back any distributions because the award is 50% of the BENEFITS ACCRUED adjusted only by gains/losses. Oh, and what happens if I don't catch a break, and they were married AFTER participation in the Plan began. That would be buckets of fun. Is this an Oklahoma thing? I've been reviewing QDRO's for a long time and its first time I've seen this language.

Exquisite!!!

The answer is of course "no" but still I'm looking for something in writing that says "403b's need not concern themselves with that limitation, and as such if your contributions exceed 25% of eligible comp, that's no problem." I'm honestly surprised I can't find an article on point. But admittedly the plan where this coming up is " very unusual."

Your loan payments can be suspended up to a year for any leave. This is from the regs, but it is actually written in a pretty straight-forward manner. § 1.72(p)-1 Loans treated as distributions. Q-9: Does the level amortization requirement of section 72(p)(2)© apply when a participant is on a leave of absence without pay? A-9: (a) Leave of absence. The level amortization requirement of section 72(p)(2)© does not apply for a period, not longer than one year (or such longer period as may apply under section 414(u) and paragraph (b) of this Q&A-9), that a participant is on a bona fide leave of absence, either without pay from the employer or at a rate of pay (after applicable employment tax withholdings) that is less than the amount of the installment payments required under the terms of the loan. However, the loan (including interest that accrues during the leave of absence) must be repaid by the latest permissible term of the loan and the amount of the installments due after the leave ends must not be less than the amount required under the terms of the original loan.

I tried to read it but it was gobbledygook.

Any reason why a 403b plan cannot contribute more than the max deductible? So two people make $100,000 each. Can they each get $50,000 in profit sharing? That's 50% of comp. I'm inclined to say no because, duh, they are not deducting anything. But the closest I can come to guidance is through the process of elimination. I want something more concrete, like a McCay Hochman article or an IRS FAQ. Anyone? (assume reasonable comp is not an issue as that is a matter for the CPA to address and not me!).

Is there something hard I can point to? It does seem a little insane that this is such an interesting question! But I like the "quarters ending in 2015" approach better than between.

I'm trying avoid sloppy plan drafting Do you think the "on or between" makes it unambiguous?

Sounds like a ridiculous question, but would the values of 5 and 10 (i.e., the end points of the range) be included? So if the plan says: "For the calendar quarters ending between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2015 the employer will contribute 15% of pay, and subsequently the employer will contribute 5% of pay." Does the calendar quarter ending ON 12/31/2015 fall between 1/1/2015 and 12/31/2015? As you can see it could make a big difference. Should I be writing "ending on or between" or is that over-kill. I googled for about 10 minutes to try and find something on point about this but to no avail. The Dictionary.com definition was not too helpful. 2. intermediate to, in time, quantity, or degree: "between twelve and one o'clock; between 50 and 60 apples; between pink and red."

Cafeteria Plan. You're going to tell me the documents should make it clear?

Company give a $250/month allowance to its employees. If employees benefit premiums come to $300 per month, there is a $50 deduction from their wages. If their benefits come out to $50 a month, they get $200 "bonused" to them as income. 1) I am pretty comfortable that the cash bonus is a taxable fringe benefit (although I know not everyone will agree, perhaps). 2) I am much less comfortable with the following question: If the employee spends the $250 per month, is the $250 considered wages for purposes of 415 comp OR is it employer paid medical benefits which would NOT be comp.?

yes and yes. We;'ve been running on net comp for years now.

Tom, an actuary's got nothing on those math skills!