QDROphile

Are you asking the right question? Assume the stock is represented by a certificate (the ownership document). If the stock is purchased on the NYSE and then the certificate is transported out of the United States, the stock is not within the jurisdiction of the U.S. federal courts. The NYSE is just a marketplace.

EPCRS, Rev. Proc. 2008-50.

Section 402(e).

There is federal case law to that effect relating to the payroll deduction statues, despite the DoL position.

This is not business ethics, but as an ERISA matter you should be sure you are dealing with the plan fiduciary, or be advising the plan fiduciary about what is happening. I realize that the plan administrator is "the employer" for many plans, and the plan documents often do not specify which sentient beings represent "the employer" for plan purposes, so you are left with uncertainty about the identuty of the proper sentient beings unless you are dealing with the board.

You are being too clever by half, as the Brits would say. The pension is protected from creditors, so the pension was not affected by the bankruptcy. The failed or tardy domestic relations order is irrelevant to the bankruptcy and vice versa. Separately, the failed domestic relations order did not provide an interest to the former spouse under the pension, except a right to amend in a timely manner, which did not occur. If the former spouse wants to take another run at it years later, the former spouse will have to get through the state court first, and state courts do not always keep the door open forvever, especially when someone is dilatory. If the new or amended order gets through the state court, the plan administrator should be indifferenct to the delay and should follow the order if it qualifies. However, if things have changed, such as the participant has remarried or retired, the former spouse has to deal with the new circumstances at the time of the order and may be more limited in what is available under a QDRO compared to the time of the divorce.

Courts have not always followed the DOL position, and as J Simmons point out, the new law is limited to retirement plans.

I can confirm that ADP is incompetent or worse, so pick which version of incompetence you want: (1) inability to handle Roth contributions, (2) incorrect information about purported ability to handle Roth contributions.

I agree with jpod. A change in control provision is compliant if it is more restrictive about triggering than 409A allows. I would agree with you if someone were trying to amend the change in control provision to be more restrictive.

If it is not a condition of employment, what does the employer do if the employee does not show proof of other coverage? If the employer automatically institutes pay reduction or deduction, would that violate applicable state law payroll laws?

The statute says "with respect to a participant" not "of a participant," but I do not know where that takes you down the line. I would start with the idea that the benefit could be assigned by QDRO, but I would also think about the implications of having a beneficiary (alternate payee) of a beneficiary (named or default) and whether or not the plan allows that. I agree that the beneficiary has an interest automatically, no claim needed. A claim may be necessary for distribution, but not the property right. The plan will have to determine the identity of the beneficiary or beneficiaries before proceeding with anything.

The plan sponsor does not determine qualification, the plan administrator or other fiduciary has that responsibility. The fiduciary must determine qualification within a reasonable time. Absent unusual circumstances, 18 months is not reasonable. Also, pending the determination, a lot of plans provide for segregating an amount that would be payable to an alternate payee if the order is determined to be qualified and investing it in an investment that has low risk of loss. That is why the earlier posts advised to collect all the relevant information. The fiduciary may have fallen short of the plan's own standards for processing.

I beg to differ. If a participant is earning pay before the effective date and has a deferral election in place, the deferral accrues, and the match along with it. Or there is at least enough of a chance that that is the correct analysis to make you wonder seriously if it is worth it to save the match for that pay period.

First, I am not aware of anything that says moving into a rental home is acquiring a principal residence. Second, the funds for the purpose were obtained without hardship withdrawal. It is at best very agressive to use a hardship withdrawal to cover a separate debt, even if the debt orginated from an elgible situation. So much the worse if the loan is from the employer.

$4000 from the plan. Maybe more from someone else, a more interesting question.

Don't forget the objective criteria, and when you figure out what that is, please let the rest of us know.

At some point the expenses would not be eligible, or would be an indication that they were not eligible, such as the medications are not being used by the participant and eligible family members. What triggers duty to inquire further is not an easy call.

In that case, the threat, and going through with the threat, of appeal to the Department of Labor is a legitimate tool. But don't use the toool too soon. The participant should get started immediately with a formal claim under the plan's claims procedure. That formality should get some attention from the fiduciary, who may be just hoping the issue will go away. I take you at your word that informal inquiry and protestation have not received reasonable response. The situation also sounds like it involved a failure to follow plan terms, which would disqualify the plan, so the threat of going to the IRS to report potential plan disqualification is a possibility. That option is a bit more self destructive, but it will touch a nerve with the plan sponsor and management as well as the plan administrator.

What is your role with respect to the plan or the participant? Are you a fiduciary?

Who are you to involve the DOL and why?

Those words are typically understood to refer to the taxes on the income that results from the hardship distribution based on the hardship standards of the document, such as medical expenses, etc. For example, if a participant qualified for a hardship distribution for $10,000 of medical expenses and was in a 20% tax bracket, the plan could distribute $10,000 (medical expenses) plus $2000 (20% for taxes) plus $1000 (10% penalty tax). My numbers are not fine-tuned for iterative computations. The language does not mean the plan will allow a hardship distribution for a stand alone income tax obligation. A hardship distribution for a stand alone income tax obligation would have to be justified by some other plan terms.

Does EPCRS still require the notice to the former participant that the excess amount is not rollable and that penalties attach if the excess is not withdrawn from the IRA?

If the plan is a 401(k) plan and the plan is not registered, no employer securities.

Assuming no state law problems, nothing requires the numbers to be translated from the original award. The original award cannot be implemented as originally provided. The checks to the participant could be split on some basis, possibly taking into account the lack of diligence by the former spouse. One consequence of the delay is the election of a J&S annuity with a new spouse, which makes the current checks smaller than life annuity checks. So one would not expect the former spouse to be getting numbers resembling those that would have attained to a timely QDRO.

Not having seen an answer, I renew the question.