QDROphile

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.

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.