QDROphile

I thought I had consumed all of the available myopia in this thread.

Sorry. The new loan is small enough that it passes when all of the loans are treated as outstanding as provided in the regulation. You set that out in the original post. I would not have backed into the numbers the way you did, but the ultimate conclusion is the same for the amount of the new loan.

#2 and #4 loan amounts will not be paid by the original latest maturity dates. The new loan could not comply unless it has step down payment schedule to provide for higher payments early in the term to correspond to the original maturities. The payment relief you want from the refinancing is achieved by stretching the orignal payment over a longer period to provide for a smaller periodic payment on the remaining principal amount. That violates the regulation and probably also the amortization requirements.

The elective deferral feature provides the recurring contributions. What is misleading about a discretionary contribution unless you say you intend to make a contribution and don't? The question about saying nothing when there is no intent to make any contribution is worth consideration.

Violates the regulation.

What is the maturity of the new loan?

Depends on what the status is under applicable domestic relations law. It could be a domestic relations order. A stipulated property settlement agreement, incorporated in a judgement, decree or order, or otherwise officially contemplated by applicable law and procedure and approved, is a common form of domestic relations order. If you had a judge rather than a Standing Master, you probably would not have a question. It is possible that a Standing Master has the appropriate authority under applicable domestic relations law to make it into an order. But beware Sitting Masters, Running Masters, and Masters with Bad Posture.

Disagree. Treas. Reg. section 1.72(p)-1, Q&A 20.

Please tell us more about "these circles."

General conceptual answers: It appears that the alternate payee is awarded a portion, less than 100 percent, of your benefits, including survivor benefits. The remainder is yours and would be the basis for any survivor beneifts for your surviving spouse, no matter when you die. When you die will determine which survivor benefit applies. I am skeptical of your use of the term "shared interest" unless there are more relevant terms than you have reported. Most plans provide that if the alternate payee dies before starting benefits, the participant's benefit is restored as if no QDRO. The answers specific to your situation depend on tems of the plan, the plan's QDRO procedures, the order, and any interpretation of the order by the plan administrator in connection with the determination of qualification. Also, the plan administrator should be able to answer your specific questions. Someone should have considered the questions and advised you when the order was drafted so your agreement to the terms would be adequately informed.

Maybe I am just too discriminating, but I see a fallback method of collection when payroll deduction fails as very different from instituting an arrangement that is tailored for the owner and does not even anticipate payroll deduction that is required of others. Perhaps I would feel better if the work force indeed had volatile compensation so the arrangement could be justified with a straight face.

I dunno. When I do the Venn diagrams, the intersection is very limited and the owner figures very prominently. What other participant will be able to borrow without payroll deduction? Otherwise, you get the same result as suggested by EricWings, so I don't see what goes further about your formulation.

So you would allow loans to participants who are no longer employed by the plan sponsor? Permissible. Uncommon. Raises questions about expectation that the loan will be repaid and the appropriate interest rate on a loan that does not have a lock on pay.

I think you need to look at the service and controlled group rules. I did not review, but generally any service with in a group counts and controlled groups are not limited to domestic entities. It is possible to design the plan to have special exclusions, subject to discrimination limitations, that treat the person in an unusual way with respect to eligibility, but probably not for vesting.

You start by looking at the plan document because the plan can require distributions in amounts greater than required by law. You also need to make sure you comply with the timing specified by the plan.

Look at Rev Rul 2004-55 for a basic outline of considerations. It will not answer your question directly.

The plan provisions describe a post-death run-out period for submitting claims for pre-death expenses. They do not extend the period of coverage for expenses of dependents. I agree with J Simmons that there is a "duh" factor here and it is the fault of the drafter that possble impressions to the contrary are created.

What determines when the amounts become FICA wages? It sounds like someone may be acting as an administrative agent of the [now dissolved?] employer that is paying the FICA wages, but I am not clear about what is going on.

You are correct. Lump sum "payment" for health benefits over a number of years won't work under a cafeteria plan. It will violate the rule against deferral of income.

Maybe the important question revolves around the choice at termination of employment between severanc in a lump sum or in five years of installments. The cafeteria plan comes in later and offers a choice between the cash severance payments or the health benefits. So (1) is the severance payment over five years deferred compensation, and (2) is the election to defer (choose the installments) timely?

That is one of the primary concerns, but other circumstances could play a part even if the 25% ownership mark is exceeded. Also, the LLC could maintain ownership documents (e.g. deeds) in the U.S., but a few questions would go along with those circumstances.

What is the plan asset? Is it the LLC interest or is it the Costa Rica real estate? It may be tough to answer that question without getting into legal advice.

My suggestion is that if you are not experienced with secton 403(b) and government plans, you should not undertake any responsibility for plan documentation, especially in light of the new regulations that place an emphasis on plan documentation. I hesitate to send you rope with which you will hang yourself, but you may wish to look at the IRS model 403(b) plan document. It does not address the specific issues that you mention (the contract compensation is addressed indirectly, depending on circumstances), which suggests that some special knowledge is required to perform adequately.

If you look at the regulations, you will see two essential conditions. One is an appropriate reason, the other is lack of other resources. I think you can address each condition separately, as do the regulations.

Just to keep the arguments straight, my understanding of the question relates only to the safe harbor and six month suspension of deferrals. Sob stories are not an element and the standards for determination of other resources are manageable. Determination of appropriate reason for distribution is another matter entirely and expansion on the list in the regulations opens an undesirable can of worms.