QDROphile

I would love to see the authority for making a contribution to another type of plan instead of a contribution that was required under a MPP. I thought that is what 204(h) is all about.

Amend the MPP to make it into the ESOP so the contribution for 2008 goes to the ESOP. Sounds like this employer will have a rough ride with an ESOP.

The plan administrator takes the QDRO under the current circumstances and applies it as well is it can, or determines that the order is not qualified if the terms cannot reasonably be applied to the benefit as it is now -- in pay status. I would not make any effort to apply the order other than propectively to payments yet to be made. Other than that, it is all a matter of judgment and interpretation, and within the authority of the plan administrator. The determination of qualification (if qualified) should describe the application of the QDRO terms and efect on each person. If the individuals object, then the dispute need to be resolved in an appropriate way, which might mean that a determination of qualification is reversed. Meanwhile, since the plan has received a domestic relations order, payments should be suspended to the extent required by law to preserve benefits that may be subject to a QDRO.

Access fees are still not eligible for FSA payment.

Rev. Rul. 2002-27. The post did not give a lot of details, so the warning must be evaluated depending on circumstances.

Qualifed retirement plans may need terms to deal with "deemed" cafeteria plans and effect on compensation.

If the employee pays the premium and there is no reimbursement, the employer is not involved in any way, so it cannot be a group health plan. If the premium is paid through after-tax payroll deduction, I would argue that the payment arrangement is just a courtesy to the employee -- the employer still makes no decison regarding health benefits. But if the employer is involved in funding, including thorugh a cafeteria plan, other decision making, it is easy to fall into the HIPAA definition. If the employer will only pay after-tax payroll deductions to certain insurance companies, I would wonder.

How do you characterize the individual polices for HIPAA purposes? Try this description: The employer has a health plan. Under the plan any employee who wants health coverage must find an individual policy with the desired coverage. The employer will pay the premium, either directly, or indirectly by reimbursement to the employee after the employee pays the premium. Is that a group health plan? The HIPAA definition seems to cover it. The variations on the coverages are not relevant to the HIPAA definition. The cafetria plan as a delivery device is not relevant. The cafeteria plan is just a tax trick affecting the individual.

A plan can't have that provision, at least as applied to parties in interest who are not employees.

Here is a hint for your futher inquiry. No matter how you come out on the issue, if you have not at least discussed HIPAA in connection with the arrangement, you have not adequately considered the consequences.

What does the plan say if a beneficiary dies? Alternate payees are more like beneficiaries than participants in many respects, including ERISA provisions that treat APs as beneficiaries. What do the written QDRO procedures say about the interest of the alternate payee and beneficiaries of alternate payees? What does the order say? Assuming that this is a defined contribution plan that allows alternate payees to designate beneficiaries, and assuming no answer from the other sources, the money would probably go to the estate of the alternate payee. You really should have a clear answer from the other sources. If not, you need to work on the documents.

I am curious about the wife.

Sorry if I missed something because I did not parse your question properly. No 403(b) arrangement should deliberately fail to comply with the 403(b) regulations, incluing the requirement for a plan document. ERISA has nothing to do with whether or not to comply with the tax regulations. The ERISA question is whether or not to try to find that line and walk it. My advice is not to bother.

See Treas. Reg. section 1.409A-1(a) (2)(viii). But some people should be rethinking what was permissible under pre-409A law in light of 409A even though 409A does not apply.

Prepare to spend too much time and too much money to achieve an uncertain result. I think you can buy into the DOL delusion without great fear of the DOL; it is just a lot of trouble to understand and comply with the so-called guidance. Sloppy compliance is probably even OK if the DOL has any sense of shame. The important question relates to trouble and liability when a participant finds some way to improve his or her lot under ERISA and the judge does not buy into the DOL delusion. One point of my previous answer is that ERISA status can be attained by formal actions as well as funding.

Compliance with the 403(b) plan document requirements will make the plan an ERISA plan in most cases, despite the DOL attempt at rationalizations to the contrary.

Silly rabbi, tricks are for kids.

Typically the loan is an offset distribution. While other options may be theoretically possible, they are usually not possible in practice. The account balance will be reduced by the distribution to $96,000, assuming you are counting the loan in the balance that you reported.

mjb is correct. A qualified plan cannot divide the retirement plan benefits and pay to a same sex former spouse (or other relationship, whatever you call it) unless the person is a dependant under federal law. Federal law does not recoginze same sex spouses, and plan qualfication is are governed by federal law. The plan would be disqualified if divided and distributed any benefit.

Some people can't take a joke and others can't recognize a joke. Two cars meet on a one lane bridge. One driver shouts, "I never back up for idiots!" The other, shifing into reverse, replies, "I always do!" Some people keep repeating very old and corny jokes, thinking that the context justifies it.

The answer is in the crazy history of the statute, but the explanation that involving the benefit in the cafeteria plan regime could run afoul of the cafeteria plan restrictions is valid. Transportation fringe is a more free wheeling benefit.

I see. You did not mean "gratuitous?", you meant "with gratitude."

If you have not already done so, you might check the thread on the securites law board that started on April 28, 2005. It provides a roadmap, some key citations, and a bit of amusement if you are interested in personalities. If it makes you feel any better, I do not have a post on that thread. Please explain your one word question in parentheses. The post is asking about pitfalls. I pointed out a pitfall that would not commonly be anticipated in the retirement plans community.

You cannot have a 401(k) plan that is a multiple employer without violating secuities law.

I don't know how far you can push section 414(p)(2)(B). I think 'apply gains or losses' might be good enough, but the plan can use a reasonable method.