QDROphile

See section 6 of Rev Proc 98-22, but I don't think this is the only acceptable way to impute earnings on late allocations; it is the most generous. No comment on prohibited transaction question.

Unless you or another of your advisors know exactly what you are doing, do not put life insurance in a qualified plan. Do not depend on the salesperson/agent. There is much misunderstading and abuse in this complex area.

Several years ago a 501©(3) entity (library) was take over by a county. The county mistakenly continued to pay premiums. When the county requested a refund, the answer was negative (perhaps because the official did not understand that the plan had become governmental). When we took the first step in the formal process leading to appeals at a higher level (set out in the regulations), which included a full explanation of facts, the official immediately backed off and approved the refund.

Testing of matching contributions uses compensation as defined in 414(s) of the tax code. With some oversimplification, this means total compensation. Most matches seem to be a percentage of elective deferrals, subject to a maximum of some percentage of the employee's compensation. I would guess that most plans use W-2 pay with elective deferrals and section 125 deferrals added back as the definition of compensation.

I do not speculate what is in the collective mind of Congress. But even though it smacks of socialism, it is a plausible policy to give tax benefits to encourage certain behavior to benefit the masses, but withhold those benefits when they go primarily to the captains of industry. Or as my law school corporations prof asked, "What is majority ownership of a corporation? It is a license to steal."

To ERead: You solve your problem by having a plan provision that requires the borrower to establish an intention and a reasonably certain capacity to repay the loan when due. When the participant tries to borrow (as is required under the plan's hardship rules) the administrator rejects the application because the participant is so distressed as to call in question that the loan will be repaid. This opens the door for the entire amount to be withdrawn under the hardship provisions. But be careful. Each loan has to meet the standard (which will ususally be easy if the plan gets an assignment of pay). Such an approach causes problems if you try to go with one of the big administrators who uses automated loan origination. They do not have a place in the system for a thoughtful review of a loan application - they just go by numbers in the account. You will violate the requirement for a demonstration if the loan process is automatic.

First, the focus of the test is "key employees," not HCEs. That distiction helps one reach the conclusion that if you have only key employees, you cannot have a cafeteria plan. This has been our conclusion for a one person P.C., we have not encountered a large group with only key employees. The plan is available to non-key employees even if they are HCEs, so pay close attention to the definition.

The language applies in some unusual, but real cases. We handled a matter where a county took over a library system that was conducted through a 501©(3) organization. This converted the library's retirement plan to a governmental plan, exempt from premiums.