QDROphile

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?

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.