QDROphile

Maybe the IRS thinks that giving ground again in a culture that has a tradition and mentality of noncompliance would be a never ending process. Only the discipline of the deadline got us this far. An extension will have us in the same place next year. A lot of plans will be noncompliant at the deadline no matter what the deadline is. Being in violation is a motivation.

Plan provider's rule.

Use of employer securities is not a good idea under pure retirement plan theory unless the alternative is a contribution that is nothing or substantially less. Use of employer securities will complicate plan administration, fiduciary responsibility and expose you to more scrutiny by the Department of Labor.

Not an unusual design.

If the borrower is the owner, you have great sensitivity because loans that are not paid are essentially in-service distributions. Who is making the decision to make the loan? Is there an intent and capability to pay? If there is, why has not the first loan been paid? I think the situation is terribly sticky and just the sort of thing the IRS would jump on if it ever enforced anything.

2. "Substantial risk of forfeiture" is not a necessry element of a 457(b) plan, and in fact can seriously compromise the plan because of when amounts are counted against the annual limit.

Something for nothing is always a great idea, but it is never the reality. The cafetria plan itself is not an ERISA plan, but watch out for prohibited transactions around the ERISA edges.

I don't think the IRS thinks the statute has the same scope as a lot of ESOP professionals think, but it is unlikely that the circumstances in this post would be a test case. At lease one court case went with the statute over more narrow IRS regulations that had been recently issued, without discussion of the issue of scope and conflict with regulations.

An amazing number of FSAs do not comply with the exemption from the trust requirement even though the benefits are paid from general assets and "employee money" has nothing to do with it. I venture that most FSAs that have third party administrators who handle disbursements are noncompliant.

It is common to have a "last day" requirement for allocation of certain types of retirement plan contributions. If you are not employed in a qualifying postion on the last day, no allocation for that year, no matter what else. What you describe fits a "last day" requirement. Look at the summary plan description for the plan (for that year). It would describe a "last day" requirement, if applicable.

"basket of money" "pool of funds" are ERISA issues becuase of the trust requirements.

What about ERISA requirements for a plan document? The dependent care would not be an ERISA plan, but section 129 has a requirement for documents.

It is possible. The possibilities are completely dependent on the particular facts and circumstances.

The provider's statements may be correct as far as the provider's business model goes, but it is not correct as far as what the law requires. The provider should have started worrying about compliance and its effects much longer ago. So should the organization. The organization has a bad provider. But I don't believe anything anyone is saying, so guage my response in that light.

You shold be able to fix in VCP with retroactive adoption if the plan has operated as if timely adopted.

You may be able to thread the needle, but you can still get pricked by the point.

You mean we don't have a full employment for lawyers statute in connection with QDROs?

"Can Guy have the 402(g) excess refunded entirely from the Glass Plan? If so, will any of that deferral count in Glass plan's ADP test?" I think we are reading the questions differently. We seem to agree on the reading of the regulations. Treas. Reg. section 1.402(g)-1(e)(4) answers "Can Guy have the 402(g) excess refunded entirely from the Glass Plan?" with "only if the plan has terms to allow Guy to elect to have the refund from the Glass Plan." The ADP question is "does it help to have Guy elect to have the refund from the Glass Plan?" But that is a separate following question, and I take my questions one at a time. If the answer to the first question is that the plan does not allow a refuned from the Glass Plan, you don't have to address the second question.

But how can a plan return an excess without a plan provision that allows for a return, especially when the deferrals under that plan are within the limits?

What do you think about Treas. Reg. section 1.402(g)-1(e)(4) that requires plan provisions for distribution of excess deferrlas?

What does the Glass plan say about return of elective contributions at the direction of a participant because of an excess caused by elective contributions to another plan?

Division of property in a marriage (what amount someone gets) is a matter of state law, which can take into account certain agreements between the individuals. Accessability to retirement benefits depends on procedures applicable to the retirement plan. Depending on the accessibility to the retirement plan to obtain what the spouse is supposed to get under the division of property, you may need, or you both may want, to adjust the division of property to skin the cat another way. You might check with the administrator of the DROPS account to see how divorce awards are handled. The procedures may be more or less formal and more or less detailed.

Look in the regulations to see how a premature Roth distribution is taxed. There a Q&A about hardship distribution that is instructive, and there may be more on point.

Unbelievable, but compliant.

And all possibility of raises and other additional compensation in any form after 2009?