QDROphile

The old plan document could work with an amendment to cover the points identified above, but it would be good discipline to use a new plan document so everything gets reviewed to make sure it still fits. If you amend the old plan, people will be lazy about whether or not all the old plan terms still apply in the same way.

Elective deferrals are included in FICA wages.

A plan cannot refuse to qualify the order because of no SSNs or DOBs and it is foolish even to suggest or encourage inclusion of SSNs or DOBs.

You might have trouble if a recipient used some or all of the distribution for the benefit of the other person.

"If the plan requires involuntary cashouts, then the plan sponsor is required to send out the paperwork and is then required to force the payment. It is not a plan provision that can sometimes be followed, that would be an operational error (albeit a minor one)." Plan sponsors do not handle distributions. Plan administratores handle distributions.

Recored keepers can be asses and they need to be directed by fiduciaries who have enough knowledge and spine not to be cowed by the asses. The proeblem is that many clients of the record keepers look to the record keepers to be fiduciaries and lawyers and the record keepers are dumb or desperate enough to fill those roles without admitting it and without competence.

Some tidbits for you to put together: 414(p)(3)(A), and no fair claiming you can draft the plan to provide no other benefits to alternate payees. 414(p)(4)(A)(iii) 414(p)(5) ERISA 206(d)(3)(J); the tax regulations go both ways, more often speaking about alternate payees as distinct from beneficiaries. If nothing else, you can conclude that a plan that is subject to the annuity rules cannot provide that an alternate payee will receive only a lump sum no matter what.

The Department of Labor would say that a "don't vote" provision is not consistent with ERISA. It goes farther than that. Also consider the DOL position on proxy voting.

The question about what the plan document says is an answer to your question about whether the trustee will vote in its discretion or in accordance with other votes. The trustee will do what the plan document says unless the terms are contrary to ERISA, so the amendment should provide for what is desired.

What do the plan/trust documents say?

The Department of Labor would prefer that the Trustee vote the shares and would probably be unhappy with the current provisions.

Help you did not ask for specifically: Has anyone thought about securities law compliance? I am assuming you have what you say, a multiple employer 401(k) plan.

Food for thought: Whether or not the reimbursement is paid at the same time as compensation, it is not compensation; it is a medical benefit that the employer is committed to deliver in accordance with the terms of the plan.

"The physicians are planning to lease the staff from some other organization." I assume that you mean that the LLC is planning to lease employees (probably at the suggestion of the physicians). Employees of the LLC (the physicians) are not the employer. More important, someone needs to determine if the LLC is a governmental unit or an instrumentality of a government. The 100% ownership is a very important factor, but it is not impossible to have other considerations cause an affiliated entity to fail to be a governmental instrumentality. If the LLC fails, the LLC plan is not subject to the exclusions from discrimination rules that apply to government plans. I do not know how the disregarded entity rules would fit into the analysis.

Depends on the plan design. The plan could be almost the same as a 401(k) plan. At the other extreme, it could be more like a bank account with annual deposits. The plan could also be more like a qualified defined benefit plan. You might also want to consider that a mistake could have more serious tax consequences and be impossible or more difficult to remediate compared to a qualified plan. Finally, ask who will be responsible for the securities law compliance and how that will affect your work.

vebaguru: I think the statement that FSAs can reimburse long-term care premiums needs a bit of qualification given the terms of section 125(f) and the fact that most health FSAs are delivered through cafeteria plans.

Misrepresentation upon misrepresentation, assuming that the statements were understood correctly. I suspect everyone is guilty of some misunderstanding.

Whoa! What you are describing does not look like it will comply with the exemption from ERISA trust requirements. It looks like you are setting up a separate fund for the health FSA. Is the money going to be held in trust?

My bad. I had another recent situation in mind and did not give the question adequate separate thought.

I agree with your proposition about an election effective for compensation after the expiration of the six months in the new year, but others disagree and would impose the moratorium for the reminder of the next year. I don't worry about it much because I think that those who use the six-month safe harbor deserve all the grief that may come their way.

The preamble to the original regulations said that a plan could not provide for not matching catch up amounts (although other wording could accomplish the same thing), but there is nothing in the regulations to match the statement in the preamble. I don't understand all the resistance to matching catch up. Outside of extraordinary matching formulae or very unusual circumstances, catch up amounts will not affect the actual match. Do the math. Possible different story if the plan has ADP problems.

See Treas. Reg, section 1.409A-3(j)(4)(viii).

If you are referring to transportation fringe under section 132(f), where do you get the idea that testing may be required?

You would probably be able to correct under VCP, but the correction would probably require putting the money back.

Other than you can't do it? No.