MoJo

No. You aren't off your rocker. But keep in mind there are other requirements of SCP that still must be adhered to. You must document 1) what happened and what the "failure" was (and I would suggest never hinting at it being intentional); 2) what the correction was; and 3) WHAT STEPS HAVE/WILL BE TAKEN TO ENSURE NO REPEAT FAILURES. Um, IMHO, it would be difficult to do what you suggest - at least more than once - if you want your SCP to be taken seriously....

Sometime my fingers type all by themselves..... "I don't believe you 'can' uncorrect a previously corrected problem..." "You can't!" (IMHO)

I maybe reading the Rev Proc. differently - if I understand what you are asking. If you "deem" the loan, it is already "corrected" at that time, so going back two years later to correct it a different way is not what I believe the IRS is allowing here. I don't believe you can't "uncorrect" a previously corrected (deemed) loan, and then recorrect it another way, undoing the previous correction tax consequences.....

You are right - there isn't a shift. My analysis then would be if they got 1000 from the date of hire (April 28) through the end of the year, then that first year would count as year one of vesting service. Sorry. I'm confusing myself..... (which happens way too often these days).

What's the plan year? I assume for the following that it is a calendar year. The way I read the document, from 4/28/16 to 4/27/17, if they had 1000 hours, that is one year of vesting service. Then shifting to plan year, from 1/1/17 to 12/31/17 is another computation period - and if 100 hours are credited, that is two years of vesting service. Do the same for 1/1/18 to 12/31/18 - and if ... then three years vesting service. Doesn't matter when they term in 2019.... If the plan year is not the calendar year - then the principle is the same, but the numbers may be different. I started work on 4/18/16, and with a 5 year cliff (DB plan), I vest on 7/1/20 (using the equivalency method based on months). Same analysis.

First, annual "audit expenses" required for the Form 5500 may be charged to the plan (I hate to be a stickler, but not *all* auditor's expenses fall into this category - for example, certain "project related" expenses not required for the Form 5500). Second, you quote the SPD - which is fine - but it is *not* the plan document. Make sure the plan document ITSELF provides that plan expenses may be charged to the plan (and how - "pro-rata", "per capita" or whatever). If I had a nickel for every time the SPD was inconsistent with the actual plan document ... oh I regress. Just make certain.

Absolutely. We actually provide a "piece" on the differences between per stirpes, per capita, primary and secondary, etc. - with the proviso - "talk with your own adviser/attorney".

If I read the situation correctly - and that is the same as Bird does, in that the Bene form pays the children directly, but does so under "terms and conditions" in an extraneous document - then I would NOT ask for the trust document, and reject the Bene form as not being a valid direction (within the four corners of the form). Requiring a PA to even look at another document not relevant to the plan or it's administration to determine intent is an obligation I would strongly recommend AGAINST. It opens the PA and the plan up to questions about interpretations of a document they should never have to rely on - or even look at. What if someone disagrees with the PA's interpretation of those "terms and conditions"? A risk I would not allow a client to take. Make the participant spell out precisely what they want in the Bene form. Personally, I would "stop" at "My children - per stirpes" as that is sufficient to split the account.

None. The one I referenced was a complicated situation (and involved several thousand employees), but we've seen extended periods of time for even simple "loan" corrections. The interesting thing is, we've seen some resolved within 6 months of filing, and some going on almost 2 years - with not rhyme or reason as to which are taking longer times. We currently are working on 23 VCP filings - so we've got a pretty good sample....

Yep. We had one that took 19 months with no response, and our normal policy is to "not poke the bear." We poked the bear, and the initial response was negative. Took a lot of work to get to the "right" conclusion. We are currently telling clients that a VCP is a 1 to 2 year process - or more....

I used to work for a bank - and while the lenders would NEVER discount loan costs for retirement plan clients, they routinely demanded discounted retirement plan fees for lending clients (on the theory that multiple "hooks" (i.e. services) with a client would keep them loyal to the bank).... Same difference - and I was kicked out of many conference rooms for refusing to comply with lender requests to do this.

Agreed - which leads me to believe it wasn't a 100% J&S....

The answer to that question is "yes, but" as it is your husband who should be seeking counsel. Let me see if I can clarify (and I am NOT giving advice here). It appears, if you are correct that he selected a 100% survivor benefit (in our parlance, a 100% joint and survivor benefit) then he (or his "survivor") would expect that upon his death, the "survivor" would continue to get the same amount of benefit as he was receiving before his death. In your example, $1000. If it truly is a 100% J&S benefit, that would be a good assumption, but it is an open question. VERIFY that (as there may have been options available, such as a 50% J&S, 66-2/3% J&S and a 75% J&S). To the extent the ex-spouse actually gets 50% of the pension (determined at the time the pension starts), one would expect her "$500' to continue - and not change as a result of his death (ASSUMING the QDRO says what you say it does). The the question is "what's left" for you - and that depends and the underlying facts behind the assumptions I laid out. The facts in these situations are extremely important - which is why your husband should seek counsel to assist in understanding and/or enforcing his/your rights as defined by the QDRO and the pension plan.

Any decision made here is a fiduciary decisions. That darn pesky prudent "expert" comes into play. If they don't have the expertise, they probably need to hire it. Letting the annuities "waste away" probably isn't the best idea - as it is a planned action to render them worthless.

I'm confused. An alternate payee is one a state court determines an alternate payee is under state domestic relations law. As long as it is a valid court order from a court with proper jurisdiction, the plan administrator need not question is. We tend to get hung up on the belief that an annulment "erases" history. It does not. It is a determination that the "legal" marriage was invalid, but the courts have amble "equitable" powers to still split property as may be appropriate. The fact that they commingled assets in a marriage later annulled has to be dealt with - and if a state's domestic relations law says a split of property is appropriate - I don't see why a DRO can't be issued.

Keep in mind in most jurisdictions, and annulment can only be obtained when the marriage itself wasn't valid (bigamy, fraud, mental incapacity) an dis designed to have an exit from that "relationship" separating the parties and their property. As pointed out in the above second quote - it's up to a court to determine who is entitled to what - and a DRO can be issued if necessary to separate equitably assets commingled - or for whatever reason valid under state law in the jurisdiction in question. Just because the marriage "never existed" doesn't mean there isn't a need to separate assets - and a DRO may be a valid way to do that.

OK. Well let me know where to send the Bit(less)coin, Got to protect my pennies!

Oh, so you the one who keeps sending me emails demanding bitcoin in exchange for not releasing my SSN and other information.... Oh, and I'm letting it ride. Dollar cost average in on the way up and on the way down....

Due diligence is a must (and pretty much any problem can be fixed - it's just a matter of cost/effort).

I wouldn't actually say the plan can be "sold" but the new "employer" can assume responsibilities as plan sponsor of the plan. We see this happen occasionally in asset sales/purchases. The "lawyers" need to be involved.....

Uh, NO! (We're now up to 6). And it says the same thing (except none of the plans that got them actually had ADRs - except perhaps in the mutual funds they held - which should be dealt with at the mutual fund level, and not at the plan level.

By the way - three of our clients received these and sent them into my team to deal with.... Should have kept my mouth shut. Karma. It's a bi!ch...

Not knowing the amount makes it difficult to ascertain the right course of action. I'm not saying the amount is "relevant" in the context of a fiduciary obligation to collect the amount - but if the amount is insignificant to the point that the costs of collecting it and allocating it exceed the amount, then I would think that it wouldn't be "prudent" to do so. I'd collect it - and then depending on the amount, determine the best course of action. The DOL has published some guidance on allocations of this type - and if you search, they may prove instructive. Bottom line - whatever is received should NOT inure to the benefit of the plan sponsor.

If it complies, it complies. We routinely get divorce decrees in lieu of a DRO, but in most cases, it doesn't qualify and we recommend a separate DRO. It can be fun reading them though! Our favorites involve who gets a half bottle of Johnny Walker Blue Label scotch (wife, but there was a notation in the margin that it was moot because the husband drank it), and another where the husband gets the farm equipment, but the wife gets a "pitch fork."

I've had mixed success with the IRS in using the "records don't exist" argument. Theoretically, those records should be maintained as long as necessary to calculate the benefits due. In a defined contribution plan, one would think that after the year is "closed" that would be sufficient, but the the IRS - as the case at hand demonstrates, doesn't always agree. As far as the bankruptcy goes - and other with more experience should weigh in here - I think the bankruptcy handles debts/liabilities that existed as of the date of filing - not those incurred after the filing but while the administration of the bankruptcy is still ongoing. Indeed, in the situations where I've dealt with bankrupt companies, we kiss goodbye what they owe us before the filing, but make them pay up for services performed post filing regardless of whether the administration is complete.