QDROphile

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?

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.