QDROphile

457(b) and 457(f) arrangements tend not to be viable except as top hat plans or governmental plans because of ERISA requirments other than filing Form 5500.

And catch ups are elective deferrals.

Different plans have different ways of dividing pension benefits. Nothing against your husband, but he may not be describing the situation with the precision that you are able to understand becuase of your related experience. Start with a copy of the order and any correspondence from the plan. It is also likely that the rules and procedures for division of benefits is in published regulations or adminstrative rules. Many govenment plans and the governing documents are unecessarily complex and difficult to understand, so good luck. Maybe you will get a more focused response from someone with experience with the plan.

"So I guess I'm asking, how can you prevent or enforce an employee who wants to cancel coverage under a POP plan from doing so and, is it possible to incorporate into the plan document a provision that would terminate the coverage for non-payment of premiums." The employer prevents cancellation of the section 125 salary reduction agreement by not amending or terminating the agreement (it is a bilateral agreement) and by not increasing the the employee's pay. Or, in terms that most people use, but is no correct for tax purposes, you continue the deduction from pay. How can the employee cause an increase in the pay check without the employer's cooperation? As LRDG indicates, the insurance coverage is a separate matter, to some extent. The employee may be able to drop the coverage (or maybe not if it is group coverage or has terms to the contrary). If the coverage is properly dropped, no premiums will be paid on it. But the section 125 salary reduction is unaffected unless what happens with the insurance is not elective. Under the salary redution agreement, the employer agrees to provide the coverage in lieu of pay. The employer needs to understand the coverage and whether or not it can be dropped, or has been properly dropped, to make sure that the employer is meeting its obligation to provide the coverage. The possible asymmetry can be unsettling, but it can also be the correct outcome.

1. The law does not require ESOPs to distribute cash. 2. Apart from the participant's ability to demand distribution in employer securities, subject to some exceptions, ESOPs are governed by the qualified plan rules and no special rules apply to medium of distribution. 3. Your question raises suspicions.

Depends on what end of the telescope you look thorough. If you accept the idea of annual elections, the requirement to cover the newborn is an exception with obvious motivation and implications (primarily mother and child, but throw in the father to assure that employee is covered). Why would the advent of a newborn raise an expectation that an employee would be able to change an earlier decision not to cover the siblings? That would have very different policy underpinnings.

And yet, it is true.

An audit request will pick up the letter, but will not pick up conversations. By the time the adviser is asked to testify, the agency will already be deep into the issues. The concern is ease of discovery, not stonewalling. Being professional has risks. You are correct that a written response is more protective of the adviser. Is a memo to the file an adequate balance between protecting the adviser and not putting the advisee in a worse position? All actions depend on circumstances, but I have advised a client to fire a consultant who wrote "the sky is falling" letters as a way of communicating observations. Nobody needs to be handed a smoking gun. It is especially touchy when the advisor does not have enough information to fully evaluate the situation.

The plan (possibly driven by the insurance policy) does not have to extend as far as the allows. The plan only has to provide for what the law requires, and the law does not require opportunity to cover the other child.

No obligation to give you the data unless your contract calls for it. I hope your contract does not call for you to do the testing without the means. Seriously, even if the contract is silent, if the client will not cooperate by providing the necessary data, you are not obligated to do the testing. So your argument is a practical one, not a legal one.

Is not having an emergency a substantial risk of forfeiture?

If you are not a lawyer and are not in the confessional, then do not send anything in writing that suggests or descibes a compliance problem unless the client asks for a writing. Your characterization of the letter as confidential does not make it privileged and does not prevent the IRS or DOL from access to the letter in an audit or investigation.

A prohibited transaction has probably occurred every year since the contribution, too. It will indeed be "interesting" to resolve.

Assume the rule is what we understand it to be. How would you write the rule without using the word "agreement"? It can be done, but the way is it written now is pretty efficient straightforward English construction, and some other word choices are more awkward. In first year contracts classes in law school, one of the first lessons is the silent exchange of goods for money in a store to illustrate that agreements come in many forms, and a writing is not necessary for the agreement nor for the agreement to be enforceable. It is a good practice to drill down in words to find the intent of the expression, but I think you are trying to find too much nuance of meaning in the word choice.

Perhaps the use of agreement in that context distinguishes between the agreement of an individual to work for an employer (an employee or an independent contractor) and the agreement between the employer and the agency for someone to work for the employer (a leased employee).

If the individual has a choice about receiving pay (in the check) or the HSA contribution (taken from the check), then a cafeteria plan is the only device.

An agreement does not have to be in writing. Services through a temporary employment agency are pursuant to an agreement.

Subject to disqualification even if the policy terms were plan terms, as already noted, would it be beyond credibility to argue that the policy was a plan amendment? Yes, if the plan were submitted for a determination letter without the terms.

MexDomer: I don't know how to ask what you mean by "intellectually insulting" without fear of insulting you. I thought Bird was adding some humor to his comment, and thereby make it more interesting, by using a term (socialism) in an unexpected context. Perhaps that is what some might call a wisecrack. I thought he or she might like to extend the game, and maybe expand on the substance of the comment by responding to the proffered foil, which was also in an unexpected context. Bird tentatively recognized the wisecrack response for what it was, chose not to continue to play in the same vein, but did take the opportunity to expand on the substance of the comment. Since Bird did not appear to take offense, I hope that none was taken where none was intended. I was not insulted that the exchange of wisecracks terminated after one round. Perhaps you can help my social development (at the risk of social-ism) by explaining where the insult was. I understand the "intellectual" part and make no apologies for it. "Intellectual" is all over this forum and gives it its value, both in substance and pleasure of discourse. Perhaps your explanation will allow me see the virtue of your gratutious intercession. Lest I insult you mistakenly, only your first sentence is gratutitious. The remainder is an appropriate addition to that part of the discusssion.

On what basis would a Form 1099 for a distribution in 2008 be appropriate? It looks like the distribution was in 2007. I don't see how the timing of the filing of the participant's tax return has anything to do with legal requirements; tax returns can be amended.

You prefer antisocialism to socialism?

I agree with J Simmons. The Order should be implemented in accordance with its terms. The ability to modify after benefits start will be limited. It will get interesting if the plan does not have a birthdate or a social security number, but that should not block implementation. Some cruel device may be in order to get the necessary information, such as assuming that the AP is 18 years old. The AP will come around.

An expense is not eligible unless is an expense of a dependent.

How about a plan amendment?

Section 105 of the tax code requires a written plan document, but nothing says that the writing must have the word "plan" in it or have its pages be joined by a single staple. What constitutes best practices is another question.