QDROphile

I was not contradicting anything, I was clarifying. Your response was overflowing with information relevant to the ultimate outcome between the two individuals, but not all of that information was relevant to the plan. In fact, the plan could go astray if it considered and tried to apply all of the information and conclusions you offered; the plan can't resolve all the issues for everyone. Nothing wrong with the response, but each player needs a different filter.

State law statutes of limitation are none of the plan's buisness in the first instance. If the plan got the order before distribution of assets, then it should process it one way or another, with a bias toward qualification. If it got the order after distribution, then the order is ineffective as far as the plan is concerned. If the participant does not like the plan's determination, the participant can step in and raise various objections during the time after notice and before the determination is given effect, includig an objection that the order is no longer effective under state law.

I second Bird.

Possible penalty under state payroll law.

The plan cannot refuse to qualify an order that is properly submitted and has appropriate terms. If you want an ANSWER, I don't think you are going to get it. Charging fees under a DB plan presents some problems and we have no reliable guidance. My experience is that plans do not charge. At least one state has a law that seems to require that certain government plans charge an administrative fee and does not distinguish between DB and DC. The law is fairly stupid because it does not answer the questions it poses.

If the loan is not already distributed, why can't the individual write the check to the plan in the amount of the loan balance? Then there would be no loan in default and the distribution would be conventional. When you are not dealing with cash, I recall something like a rollover has to be the asset distributed or the proceeds of that asset. If that is the rule, I wonder if the independent check in the amount of the distributed loan would be "proceeds" delivered to the IRA.

What do the plan terms and the election forms say? This is more a communication issue than a legal issue. The plan can define compensation to include salary reduction amounts for medical benefit. The plan can also define what sources will be charged for a deferral.

The IRA can't hold the loan. It would be a prohibited transaction that would kill the IRA. The loan could be rolled over to a qualified plan, but only as a direct rollover (and not really even then, but the IRS says it can be done, so who cares what the right answer is?).

You might find that 409(i) does not apply to ESOPS. Only certain provisions under 409 apply to ESOPs. Section 409 applied generally to tax credit ESOPs and certain subsections are obsolete.

What if the pope is a lawyer or a lawyer is the pope?

You might get your answer when you think about how eligiblity will change.

The individual partner cannot function alone. The others must be taken into acocount when considering if the SEP ocverage rules are satisfied. The partner has employees. I have run across erroneous "professional" advice of this sort before.

Does the the partnership have employees other than owner employees?

The employer has choices. The section 409A regulations have some material of interest about how to charge the benefit for the FICA withhollding and ther rleated pyramiding of taxable income. Before anyone barks, I am not saying that 409A applies to 457(b) arrangements.

Check out what EPCRS has to say about rolloing over amounts that one thought, mistakenly, at the time of distribution were eligible for rollover. That may provide food for thought about how to approach the issues.

Although the arrangement has aspects that may not have been adequately considered, and perhaps the participant should not be indulged, why would the rental income be UBTI if the property were purchased entirely for cash?

Call your lawyer to asked what happens when you get sued by employees who did not get the tax qualified benefits that they were promised as a condition of employment?

If you really want to know the legal side: Unless the nonprofit hospital is a government entity or instrumentality, you don't have any 457(b) assets. All you have is promise of the employer to pay you in accordance with the terms of the plan. The assets associated with the plan belong to the employer, but the employer has probably been following your instructions about how to invest and the plan probably says that what you ultimately get paid will be based on the investment results of your investment instructions. Whether or not the terms can be changed depends on the terms of the plan. It is likely that the investment provisions can be amended without your consent. This explanation is probably not your understanding of the arrangement. If the employer shared your misunderstanding and is actually behaving under the view that you describe, it is no wonder that the employer is trying to change things. You may have a lot more to worry about than a $5000 investment loss -- like current taxation of the deferred amounts. On the other hand, you may be simply describing the situation in a practical way rather than a technical way and it boils down to the issue of the rights you have under plan terms.

Start by charging the client by the hour.

Although being a named fiduciary seals some fiduciary responsibility, under ERISA, fiduciary is as fiduciary does. If someone undertakes fiduciary functions, consciously or unconsciously, they are a fiduciary. Writings are important to define the scope of the fiduciary functions. Without some defined scope, any fiduciary of the plan is potentially responsible for all fiduciary matters relating to a plan. I don't understand what you mean by a "claim."

If a volume submitter document does not have an option for involuntary distribution at $1000 instead of $5000, that is enough evidence of incompetence that the plan should go elsewhere for a document.

The plan has to answer the question, even if the plan terms on the page do not provide the answer. If it cannot answer the question, then it could have failed under the "old" constructive receipt rules and you don't have anything to grandfather.

As of December 31, 2004, or any time prior to that, at what time were the amounts distributable for a participant who had not designated a year in the election?

The terms of the plan may allow in-service distributions from any source in accordance with the legal restrictions. It is possible to have terms to allow hardship withdrawal from matching contributions unless the matching contributions are subject to restriction. Restrictions on safe harbor contributions come to mind, but don't trust me on that.

A POP is a section 125 concept and it is not a group health plan. The group health plan that is funded through the POP must comply with HIPAA whether or not the administration of the POP or the health plan is expected to involve any handling of protected information by the employer.