QDROphile

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.

I generally advise not to allow shared payment QDROs if the order is qualified before benefits start. Since a shared payment provides payment to one person for the life of another, it is not a form of benefit provided by the plan. I am not saying a plan cannot allow shared payments. I also think there is no such thing as a truly separate interest. Section 401(a)(9) does not recognize a separate interest.

In case you are wondering, the plan can be designed to work around the leveraging if the employer does not want to be prepaying the loan to make up for value shortfalls. Additional contributions (cash, stock, or cash to buy stock) can go straight to the match to make up any shortfall. Planning not to cover the entire match through the regular debt service for the leveraged ESOP is good planning. Most employers would not want an excess from the suspense account to allocate. And don't forget that an ESOP can be designed to operate on dividends to some degree, so the analysis in not confined to contributions -- another reason not to be locked into thinking about a direct link between contribution rate and allocation requirements.

You are picturing a direct connection between the contribution and the value of the allocation. The amount of contribution and the value of the allocation are almost never the same amount. They are related by (i) the formula that determines release of shares from the suspense account, and (ii) the value of the shares at the time of allocation. To illustrate, the employer may have to increase the contribution that relates to the match simply because the value of the shares declines in order to deliver a match with the appropriate value. The match is a promise of what gets allocated based on a particpant deferral amount. If you are not dealing with a leveraged ESOP, the promise is executed by contributing the promised amount. The promise is executed in a leveraged ESOP by contributing what is required in order to produce the match value. Heady stuff.

ESOPs commonly restrict distributions. Other plans, such as 401(k) plans could, too, but generally don't. If the restriction is due to the terms of the QDRO, shame on you and your lawyer. Three years is an odd number, more than in the mathematical sense, so you should get an explanation from the plan administrator about when the benefit is payable. The employer can put you in touch with the plan adminstrtor. The employer is usually the plan administrator because the employer is usually misadvised. But that has nothing to do you with you and your QDRO.

The match is the match is the match. You don't look at the contribution. You look at the allocation. The value of the shares allocated must meet the safe harbor amount.

EPCRS nonamender filing.

You got mixed up on the unallocated account part. The overpayment was from the participant's account, so the restoration should be to the participant's account. I am not addressing the earnings, so infer nothing from no comments.

Right. It has nothing to to with the plan document. The provision should not be in the Adoption Agreement. The question should be adressed in the services contract with the person who is going to be responsible for the 404© disclosure materials. Nothing has to be in the SPD, either, but the SPD is an appropriate place to have some of the 404© disclosure. Next question: Since when do TPAs get to decide how an Adoption Agreement is marked?

What about a plan document makes the plan a "404© plan" or contributes to compliance with the 404© regulations?