QDROphile

The order should not have been qualified. That sort of formulation should never be allowed under the circumstnaces and your dilemma shows why. Go back and nix the order.

The order was poorly written and the plan administrator did not interpret the order properly. The interpretation should have been the lesser of $23,500 or 100% of the account as of the specified date, adjusted to the time of payment. Now the plan administrator will have to make some unpleasant decisions about how much to pay.

Sorry. My response was geared only to the issues that arise if one desires to name children as alternate payees, contingent or otherwise. I agree with the other posts that the plan can be designed to allow an alternate payee to designate a beneficiary without concern for identity.

No one knows for sure, or if they do, they are either not in a postion of authority or have not chosen to say in an authoritative manner. I think the plan administrator can decide either way. If the limited is view is taken, it would look to the language in the statute about child support as the basis for the exception to the rule, and will conclude that only a minor or dependent can be an alternate payee. If the expansive view is taken, then the operative question is, "Who cares?" Either way, be careful about the special tax rules and the need to deal with different withholding rules. I recommend that the withholding be required to be specified in the order to avoid ambiguity about what the AP is really supposed to receive -- an amount that is net of withholding or not. The main source of trouble is that the participant can elect the withholding amount if not confined by the terms of the order.

The general principle under EPCRS is that earnings are taken into account until the correction is effected.

Why create extra infrastructure and administrative and fiduciary burden under the plan when better alternatives are available?

Step back further. You don't need to use specific terms unless EPCRS specifically addresses your circumstances.

Nobody said the rules make sense in all circumstances. The effect of the rules is that no one will elect the HRA group health plan benefit as a practical matter. But fail to comply with the COBRA formalities (e.g. notice) at your peril.

Look to EPCRS for correction.

Somebody should read Schoonmaker v. Employees Savings Plan of Amoco Corp, 987 F2d. 410 (7th Cir. 1993), even though the DOL has not read the case. The DOL thinks a whiff of QDRO should cause constipation. The DOL's position is not only legally wrong, based on an inability to read the statute, and oblivious to practicalities of plan administration, it disregards obligations of fiduciaries to respect the rights of participants. More direct answer: What do the QDRO procedures say? The QDRO procedures should say that the plan administrator will take no action until receipt of a domestic relations order. Until receipt of a domestic relations order, it is business as usual under the plan. If the plan does not have QDRO procedures that deal properly with such typical issues, the plan administrator deserves all the grief that can come its way, especially if the plan administrator know nothing aobut QDROS. So much the better that being in the sovereign nation of California makes things tougher.

And who engaged the TPA and what control is exerted over the TPA? And what about all the 403(b) compliance the sponsor is responsible for, especially with an open market arrangement -- the plan needs all those contracts to make the providers communicate and behave? The DOL says it can be done, but none of us would have said so five years ago, and neither would the DOL.

Q: Do you think the DOL was lying in its most recent field assistance bulletin on the subject or do you think that the DOL was lying in all the years prior to the bulletin or do you think the DOL just lost its mind and sense of shame? If any arrangement can remain exempt, the one you describe seems to be a candidate. How is that for equivocation?

Get competent legal assistance. To get what you want, you will probably have to have the original division of the 401(k) account reformulated. Whether or not the court will do that depends on local law and custom.

I wonder if someone could clarify for me the difference between a one time irrevocable election under the 401(k) regulations (which is wht the original post appears to be describing) and the opt out that pops up in discussion from time to time on the boards. In particular, what is the basis for such an opt out, or is it just that nothing says you can't?

If deferred compensation is secured by amount held in a trust, the deferred compensation is taxable. We were not limiting the discussion to deferred compensation that is subject to a risk of forfeiture. The trust arrangements are of greater interest to vested deferred compensation.

Not well said when words are omitted. I would take my chances with potential problems under ERISA.

You can't have a plan design that is compliant with 409A if you have any way to stop elective deferrals for the year except as expressly provided under 409A. Position eligibility is secondary to the annual deferral election requirement. Section 409A does not care about ERISA. Pick your poison. I would take my chances with potential problems ERISA. You might consider an election to defer "10 percent of my compensation for the year as a vice president" compared to "10 percent of compensation for the year" but it would be risky. You have more to work with for nonelective deferrals.

True as to elective deferrals. You also have to be sensitive to how nonelective deferrals are described.

Typically the company stock fund would be the ESOP portion of the plan and the dividend would either be paid to participants or reinvested in employer securities, at the direction of the participant. The plan document will have appropriate provisions. The ESOP board has posts concerning ESOPs that are defined by the stock fund rather than by legitimate criteria. Notwithstanding the bogus nature of the arrangements, they are common and honored.

Either the plan document or an investment policy document will dictate the dispositon of cash dividends. Same for stock dividends and fractional shares. For public companies it is common for cash dividends to be reinvested in employer securities unless there are directions to the contrary. ESOPs have their own considerations. A plan of public company that pays dividends that has a company stock investment option will probably be an ESOP.

Since when was the husband not eligible for single coverage under the husband's employer's plan?

It is nice to know someone can see a slow high hanging curve ball when it is served up.

If your Delaware Statory Trust is not a rabbi trust, the deferred compensation will be taxable. "Rabbi trust" is just a name, with a historical reference, to a grantor trust. I agree that the trustees often do not pay pay attention to their contractual duties, but who can you really count on to do a job properly anyway?

Loss of eligiblilty for futher accrual is not an event that requires payment, and can't be an event that permits payment. You follow the 409A compliant terms of the plan with respect to payment. I would not worry so much about the accrued benefit causing ERISA problems if everything was compliant during the time of accrual and no monkey business on the side.

The "co-pay" appears to be simply the employee share of the health coverage cost. A cafeteria plan works only with a choice of cash or benefit. The plan can be amended to provide that if the employee elects health coverage, the employee's pay will be reduced by $5 per period and the employee will be provided with the coverage. The $5 "co-pay" cannot be paid from the health spending account because it is a premium for health coverage. I agree with Lori Friedman.