QDROphile

What is the employee getting in return for giving up prospects for $50,000?

bg5150. You have it backwards. Why would you want to give up employer money rather than have some of your money be taxable?

What will securities counsel disagree about? Not whether or not the plan is required to register. Would they disagree about whether or not to comply with the law? Please explain.

The Department of Labor favors voting in the discretion of a fiduciary over a a mechanical method. Remember that the fiduciary always has the duty to override the vote and plan terms in unusual appropriate circumstances.

qua-drow

Identifying, setting aside or reserving amounts for medical reimbursement can trigger the trust requirements of ERISA.

SLuskin's post is more on the mark than Mattew Tae's post under the circumstances described in this thread. The document at the link is a proposition, not a description of the law.

I imagine that if a sponsor (or the sposor' advisers) were on the edge or ove the line on the law before enactment of section 409A they will do the same under the 409A regime. But flauting the law now is even worse than flauting it then.

From the plan's perspective, the terms of the order will have to specify so the plan will know how to pay. Otherwise, how the award is structured is a matter of state law and agreement of the individuals. Certain states have case law addressing the propriety of use of a coverture fraction applied to the entire accrued benefit, always approved as far as I know. I would be a bit surprised if any state law took on your question directly.

If the plan document is as you describe, the document sucks and you should take it out on the document, the document provider or the person responsible for adopting the document. This should be an easy bind to get out of, but I think some guilty party should be made to sweat a bit. You will probably get a helpful post from someone less judgmental and less punitive.

Not on my watch.

You don't need to feel too sorry for the individual.

I agree that you should get clarification about what was intended, but it could be exactly as specified. The combination of "401(a)" and "annuity" is what causes question, but is not impossible, especially since "annuity" seems to be described as an investment. A plan document will be required either way. Whether or not an annuity is a good investment choice is also a question, but not for me to answer. Another question is whether or not the school district has state law authority to adopt the plan, whatever it is. 403(b) plans are traditional for schools and a sub-state level government entity often does not have authority to adopt its own 401(a) retirement plan.

Since a domestic relations order is an order or other edict of a court or other authoized body, even if the order is an approval of a settlement agreement, I do not see how a post-order agreement that is not itself approved by the court or other body can be a domestic relations order. I would not approve an order in the first place if it had a provision that says the order could be modified simply by agreement of the particpant and alternate payee. Domestic relations orders are not limited to court orders.

This game isn't getting any traction, so I offer my response to close: Burnin' Down the House, with "Strange, but not a stranger."

The deductible amouts do not have to be paid with HSA dollars, but they cannot be paid with FSA dollars. Offering An FSA on the bet of big expenses is not likely to help all that many people. Remember that if eligible expenses are not incurred, the amount is lost. Maybe I am just lucky, but I do not know that many people who can reliably predict that they will have such big uncovered expenses.

I had something else in mind that perhaps is a closer match to the words, but there are no wrong answers. We are dealing with a question about match. What kinds can we come up with?

Popular music trivia test: What song is evoked by Sieve's comments about my remarks?

I don't buy it. Legally, the employer is totally in control of the plan lauguage, so any limitation imposed by the plan is the act of the employer, which mkaes the employer responsible fo determining benefits, and triggers ERISA. But in the brave new world, I can't say what is right.

The DOL's obfuscation got you, too? Consider joining the national conspriacy to fail to recognize ERISA for deferral only 403(b) plans until the DOL provides something but lies for guidance. 1. Maybe exempt, depding on other things you have not mentioned. 2. Not exempt. 3. Not exempt.

As a lousy typist myself, you have my sympathies. The transition rule will work as you describe. No strings attached. Life will be much more amusing when we lose the transition rule.

"I was hoping someone could help with some guidance on the following scenario - our TPA is not sure & I am at wit's end trying to find an answer to this." Sometimes one can find answers by hiring people who are able to advise. And sometimes one hires those people before actions are taken that preclude more certain or favorable options. People who handle benefits in most companies are not authorized to get proper advice and those who have the authority often won't listen and they do not include the benefits people in planning. So we have the unhappy situation where some poor soul who is just trying to do a good job has to say, "Gosh, my only unreliable source of information is not sure, so I solicted the views of strangers to make a decisioon that has tax, economic, and employee morale consequences."

Under the world as we knew it, if the employer designed plan terms, such as availability of loans, the plan would be subject to ERISA. The Department of Labor has not admitted to changing the world as we know it, but claims that all sorts of things can be done now that will not cuase the arrangment to be subject to ERISA. The Department got put in a corner and chose to survive by abandoning credibility and integrity. So the answer to all 403(b) questions is that you can do what you want without fear from the DOL, but if you do something to anger a participant who is willing to go so far, you might help clarify the law by giving the courts an oppotunity to muddle through the questions. I still think a plan design (or product mandate, as mentioned in the excerpt above) by the employer would cross the line into ERISA.

Don't expect to be able to comply with all applicable law if you are with Fidelity. The Fidelity system is the law once you are in it.

Too late to avoid payment for a 2008 termination.