QDROphile

The account is the participant's account. What the record keeper calls it does not matter as long as it is administered correctly as the participant's account. Have some fun. Instead of naming accounts by participant name, give each account a nom d'account. Everyone will enjoy having dual idientity.

We don't have any facts about any retirement plans for any employees of any employer, prospective or otherwise.

That would be a different discussion. What to do to avoid issues and what to do after certain facts have set in are two different matters. I have no quarrel with your argument based on a literal reading of the statute and I think no second filing is required. But I advise a second filing, one of the few times I advise to run with the herd.

To be really sure you can eliminate employer securities, the plan needs to say that the right to distribution of employer securities is the right to distribution of employer securities in the account at the time of distribution. Then you can eliminate the employer securities as an investment option in the first step. Once the employer securities have been eliminated, the distribution option can be eliminated. I am uncertain about a plan that provides a blanket right to distribution in employer securities (i.e. the plan has to obtain employer securities for distribution no matter how the account is invested up to the time of distribution).

You have just spent more time in inquiry than it would have taken for a filing. If you had spent the time filing, you would have nothing to worry about except the loss of postage, whether or the DOL can read a statute (which it cannot sometimes).

No.

Section 409A is a concern if someone who has a right to payment in a year receives payment in a subsequent year. That is not to say that the situation you describe violates 409A.

A second filing is common because it is not that much trouble and removes any doubt about interpretation or policy.

What about the requirement that salary reduction can be effected only prospectively, never mind when the qualifying event occurs?

Is the son compensated?

In comments at the ABA at annual section meetings, the IRS said it was OK. Those materials are published, but I cannot remember the year. The IRS comments are not official guidance.

Without further thought about the conflict between the plan terms and the annuities and the adverse implications, you should consider a disclaimer by the son. It would be nice if the son were not a minor at the time of the disclaimer.

Can an individual be an accrual basis taxpayer?

Sorry for the distraction. I have no idea why I read so much into the original post. Maybe I was wishing to see a completely novel question.

I thought the question was whether or not the employees of the government unit could participate in the 403(b), even though the government unit is not eligible to sponsor a 403(b) plan. Are you saying that if the 501©(3) entity is an instrumentality, then that opens the door for the parent's employees?

It is also possible to roll over a loan directly (not really, but the IRS says it is OK), so you could roll your entire balance to the plan of your new employer, if both plans allow.

If the plan has a medical FSA feature, the elections for the FSA often depend on the core medical coverage and cost, so it is best to have FSA elections when the core medical benefits are known.

If they took deductions for amounts not contributed, you might consider tax fraud, too.

The 404© regulations require a plan fiduciary who intend to comply with 404© regulations to state that intent in materials given to the participant. The statement need not be in any particular materials, but is often in the SPD or the investment information materials.

The regulations do not require a six month suspension. If you don't like the conflict, amend the 401(k) plan.

Usually the HCEs are the ones who get the better out of the true-up because they front load more. If so, it not a good candidate.

But is nothing sacred?

Who has authority to appoint and remove the trustee?

The document doesn't suck, but evidently the use of the document by this employer sucks, so that means the advice or assistance to the employer about adopting the document sucked. I am assuming that the document is a protoytpe, and all prototypes suck to some degree. Truly matching by pay period is an idea that sucks, even though payroll people may like it. That does not mean that payroll people suck, but payroll people are sometimes an impediment to optimal plan administration. Optimal plan adminstration is not the mission of payroll people, so the impediment is not the result of character flaw. So if the document is a prototype and it provides for a true pay period match, I guess it sucks, but election by the employer of the match feature with this employer is the worst part.

If the plan were not operating in accordance with its terms, the only way to fix the error by retroactive amendment is through a VCP filing and the error you describe would not be a good candidate. But don't be so sure the operation was faulty. Match calculated by pay period does not necessarily require contribution by pay period. A careful reading of plan terms is necessary.