austin3515

OK, but my first question is, would your suggesting satisfy the "substantial risk of forfeiture" requirement. It seems you are saying yes. And to your other point, I hear ya, believe me, but I could imagine a scenario where there would be enough trust that such a predicament is not a risk they feel the need to hedge against. And the Chariman's point (in this case) is as I had mentioned, he wants to provide the employee with an incentive to stay. If on the other hand it is the Organizations decision to let him go (for whatever reason) then he wants the employee to vest. This is one of those situations where the clients want what they want. Why do they want what they want? Sometimes I don't want to know. He was quite clear on this point though.

The whole point is HE quits, they want there to be a forfeiture. Besides if he could just quit to become vested, clearly there is a not substantial risk of forfeiture. I guess the point is the likelihood of not forfeiting needs to be "remote" (to use a word that I've read) that he will get the money before the future service component is met. So for example death and disability (God willing) should always be considered remote. Being fired for any reason at all, with or without cause?

Can anyone point me to something that says that the following works: Participant is vested if they continue employment on a substantially full time basis until age 65. Participant will be 100% vested immediately upon the occurrence of any of the following: death, disability, termination without cause. Can I say: termination with or without cause? I think the employer wants the incentive to be for the Participant to stay, but if on the other hand it is the employer who wants him to go, they want the participant to vest at that time.

If I can simplify your problem; X fails coverage because although Zs employees are covered by a 403b plan, they are not excludable for coverage purposes by virtue of that participation (even though the opposite is true with respect to the 403b plan). Just to make sure you know, universal availabiliy is applied employer by employer - there is no controlled group aggregation. I was stunned to learn this a few months back. But I agree you're up a creek w/o a paddle. I would submit to the IRS and say it would be ridiculous to put us do-gooders out of business over something so stupid, especially since every darn employee had the same opportunity to participate. Maybe do an anonymous...

Was there a Code G? That means they rolled it to an IRA. The taxable amount in box 2 should be zero. Sounds to me like the old plan was terminated and non-responders were transferred to your IRA. No recourse, they did everything by the book. But the good news is the distriubtion is not taxable (assuming Code G and box 2 = 0).

I can see the 2014 version is available, but when it the 2015 version available? Trying to decide if we should by it or just wait. I feel like the 2015 should be out soon, right?

Now why in the world would I ask the employer how they want their own plan designed? That's a strange question...

Can you give me the names of any providers that would include the rabbi-trust and would do a small 1/2 participant 457b? We've been doing our own rabbit trust because they always seem to end up in brokerage accounts. Thanks for the advice, it's been very helpful!

So QDRO, you'r saying just tell the custodian, "hey we're setting up a grantor trust account" without getting into the gruesome details? I agree why should they care what the funds will be used for.

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.