QDROphile

The result would genarally be different in a spin off, but the particular facts are important.

I would argue that the only way that the benefit could be delivered to the agency was if the AP has designated the agency as the AP's agent. The designation was accomplished under the terms of the order. It was not a good idea for the plan to qualify the order as written without at least some interpretive clarification, but that is in the past. I assume the terms of the order do not make the designation irrevocable. The AP subsequently revoked the agency and got the payment directly. You need a lot deeper thinking about the entire situation before proceeding. And even if I am right, you will have a lot of fun teaching a judge about how anti-assignment rules trump the state's child support regime, whether or not you are in federal court. Oh, I almost forgot. You are in the second worst possible state to get the technically correct outcome. Maybe the worst. At least the death penalty is not involved, yet.

Even if someone dares to try to respond in any detail, you need to engage a professional advisor. You are trying to play a very sophisticated game (hence the name "chess"?) and general comments from strangers are not going to be reliable.

Time is a factor in deciding if a failure is significant, but a period greater than two years does not make the failure significant by itself.

I assume that the sale of LLC membership interests will be incompliance with applicable securities law.

Why would a distribution be required? Rules for distribution to a nonspouse after a participant's death continue apply, not the rules applicable to a noninherited IRA.

A 401(k) plan with an annual deferral election really sucks, but that is consistent with an apparent 10% deferral maximum(unless you are an HCE). One would think that GE is either smarter or more accommodating than than that.

Rev. Proc. 2008-50.

The way you have written the post, you have no problem. Try rewrting with some time frames. Otherwise, you still have plenty of time in the year to acheive the maixmum contribution assuming you remain employer the remainder of the year.

How about the requirement for allocation terms, and the proposed allocation is not in accordance with those terms? If the plan were amended, such a match allocation, based on years of service, could work. It might not test out very well in the end.

The new spouse can disclaim the benefit if it is payable to her, then the next generation of beneficiary would receive. But check plan terms.

With respect to (b), the situation appears not to be a suspension of salary reduction on the part of the employer. The system looks like is shut down on the receiving end. I agree with respect to (a), and that was an oversight. But the issue is not ERISA avoidance, the issue is, does the employer have a plan under which is has any say? Most pre-2009 non-ERISA arrangements, even with public schools, are ones in which the employer is only a conduit for salary reductions and the employer does not have a plan to freeze.

Since it is a non-ERISA plan, the employer is not in charge.

No. That instruction refers to directors who are not also employees, for example. You also consider the status of the person at the time the deferred compensation is earned. It is possible for someone to earn as an employee, then join the board or become a consultant to the employer after employment and earn as a non-employee.

I did not say the other approach did not work or would have adverse tax consequences, only that if you want a direct rollover, you have to follow certain formalities about asset ownership.

Check the instructions to the forms. Hint: Start with W-2

On this point, the IRS requires the plan to state on what basis the plan operates, and is very clear that a plan amendment is required to change, and has rules about the changes.

If the infrastructure is in place for rolling out and rolling in, a loan is the same as any other asset and can be rolled.

Since government plans can meet the non-assignment requirements with a domestic relations order that does not cover all the requirements of section 414(p), see section 414(p)(11), I suspect it is a term used to avoid the word "qualified" in the context of a government plan, lest someone get the idea that the govenment is requiring something under section 414(p) not compelled by section 414(p) for government plans. Of course, the government plan could have some requirement for an"eligible" domestic relations order that section 414(p) does not have.

Find an acceptable definition of compensation and see if the nonqualified salary reduction is in it. For example. a lot of plans use a definition that resembles taxable W-2 pay with certain reductions added back (e.g. 401(k) and 125). Nonqualifed reductions would not be in that definition. Section 414(s) would be a good place to start. Happy hunting.

It is a common misconception that welfare benefit plan assets are not required to be held in trust. The DOL has a "look the other way" policy based on certain standards but those standards are violated all the time, especially in health FSA arrangements. I venture that far more than half of the arrangements violate the trust rule, even with the DOL concession to practicality. Evidently it is not practical enough, and the DOL must know it because the DOL is not enforcing its own policy.

You don't have a direct rollover if the formalities do not involve a first step of transfer of ownership of the distributed asset from the trust to the IRA or other eligible retirement plan. Skimp in the formalities at your peril.

Since the plan has recently been amended to comply with the section 415 reguations, great attention was given to such details and the plan will have provisions that describe what compensation is included relative to termination of employment. The trick may be to detetmine emploment status.

You could ask if the IRS would approve the correction under VCP.

If you have a competent promissory note, the creditor does not have to exercise rights strictly and a can allow payments to bring the note current. If you don't have a competent promissory note, get soem competent help and modify the note terms. Or are you arguing that the desired policy is a strict policy and someone wants to get around the description of a less strict policy and use the note as the lever? What is the line you want to line up?