QDROphile

Short answer is negative. I am sure some maven will give you a fuller explanation, which is not unique to ESOPs.

The essence of section 125 is a choice between a taxable benefit (cash compensation) and a nontaxable benefit (e.g. health coverage). If there are different coverage choices, they probably have different employee premium requirements. To the extent that a difference in the premium amounts may be reflected in the paycheck (taxable cash), there is some room for section 125 to operate, even in a mandatory coverage/payment arrangement, but you would not be looking at a traditional section 125 arrangement.

You might consult your therapist and spiritual advisers concerning doing the right thing and achieving peace of mind. Sometimes the options presented by lawyers do not come with recommendations weighted according to non-legal values. In other words, a course of action that is likely to give you an economic outcome that is better than you expected based on the original conceptual property division may not be the best for you in non-tangible aspects of your life. I agree with Larry Starr about the legal questions.

While I hate to suggest an increase to administrative burden and to create an additional opportunity for administrative error, after an election is first implemented, or would have been implemented if submitted by deadline, a confirming notice can be sent after the first affected paycheck (so the employee can cross check and so can the payroll administrator for that matter): “Your deferral election of ___ has been implemented ... .” Or apply it only to the zeros, including the failures to elect. I am not suggesting this is required.

Is the bonus discretionary or committed contractually?

Hence asking for the explanation. You don’t really think the inquiry would be framed by presumption of wrongdoing.

You you have the stomach for asking the CPA to explain why he/she should not be reported to an appropriate professional or regulatory authority and the take appropriate action based on what you hear?

Is that a dispositive answer or is someone unclear on how non qualified deferred compensation is reported?

Your plan document should say.

The PA screwed up, but not the way you think. The PA should have either determined that the order was not qualified or stated as part of the determination that the PA would not enforce the provision about the election, which should have resulted in amendment of the Order by the parties. PAs are required to follow plan terms and cannot interfere with participant elections provided by the plan. Someone will argue with this assertion, and I will not engage in the argument. The direction in the Order for the participant to elect a form benefit and designate a survivor is enforceable by the state court, through its powers of contempt, which is an inappropriate and usually ineffective approach to achieving desired division of the benefits. This points to a possible mistake of the drafter of the Order (someone’s lawyer?). One would need to know more about the plan, the terms of the Order, and the facts, but it may have been impossible at the crucial time for the alternate payee to have been named as survivor, which leads back to a possible mistake by the PA in determining qualification.

And what is in it for the “vendor” to espouse the position? Or what is the vendor hiding (consciously or not) to be espousing this position? For example, is the vendor limiting the scope of a search or a list of candidates based on the confining perspective? The vendor now has a huge burden to overcome — to convince you that the assertion is correct against a well-founded suspicion that the assertion is incorrect.

I have enjoyed and benefitted from your participation.

Another vote with CuseFan.

In addition to the determination by the fiduciary that the loan is reasonably expected to be repaid (for which pay deduction is extremely helpful), If a loan is not timely repaid, the fiduciary is put in the position of having to decide what to do about it, such as foreclose on security (as required by the fiduciary to decide that the loan would be repaid), or other enforcement or collection action. Whoever is in the fiduciary position needs some education about the fiduciary aspects and a little fear to impress about the responsibility that is seldom given appropriate attention.

And a publication called “Cracked” was a one-time competitor of “Mad” .... H’mmm.

Yes, your example fits my statement, assuming that the words of the amendment are also prepared or approved by the sponsor. Your puzzlement about the need for having the “3(16)” sign under the circumstances matches my skepticism about the need for the “3(16)” to be involved.

If your question is, can a fiduciary (or an administrative agent), purely as a matter of documentation, sign an amendment that has been properly adopted by the plan sponsor, then, yes, if the plan sponsor authorizes the execution by the fiduciary (or agent). It is still a bad idea to mix settlor, administrative, and administrative functions, but not as bad as circumstances involving judgement or discretion.

A person who has amendment authority (plan sponsor) can delegate that authority. The delegate can amend within the scope of the delegated authority. It is a very bad idea to delegate a settlor function (amendment) to a fiduciary. The fiduciary is required to act in the best interests of the participants and beneficiaries, which is a responsibility that is not a settlor function. That can create a conflict for the fiduciary, and one could argue that the fiduciary should decline to accept simply on principle. One can argue against the purist approach in certain circumstances such a purely formal amendments or emergency situations (e.g. required amendment deadlines), but I am skeptical. A fiduciary has no inherent authority to amend unless provided in the plan document (which is also a form of delegation). So, if you want a short answer to a bare question, no.

Doubtful because lenders know that qualified plan interests cannot be assigned, so they will not lend"against it", meaning they will not accept it as security because it will fail as security when the lender seeks to foreclose. Any contractual designation to deposit the payment must be revocable at will and lenders do not like to be subject to the whim of borrowers.

Who is the plan fiduciary with responsibility for investment of plan assets? Are the 401(k) accounts participant-directed and are the plan and trust terms appropriate for this type of investment? What are the terms of your engagement? Are you competent to assess the plan and trust terms concerning investment of plan assets? One issue of substance: Be very careful about joint interests, such as H and W accounts, in an illiquid asset. People get divorced and may wish to take distributions at different times for any number of reasons. I would not allow two participants to invest in one mortgage loan under self-directed individual accounts. And then we have the well-worn question about whether or not the other participant must be given the opportunity the opportunity to invest in THE mortgage if the mortgage is being broken up to parts to fit with individual account interests.

There is no connection between the ordinary income from a distribution from a traditional IRA and the deduction for capital losses except that they each contribute in their own respects to taxable income -- increasing it or reducing it. You can look at the deduction as an offset to the income, but you could be fooling yourself by missing the big picture and the possible effects of other tax phenomena, such as rules relating to quarterly tax payments.

Be careful about a plan or employer official getting involved in personal matters of employees, especially in giving tax advice. The specific requirements for plan disclosure about taxes, such as the rollover notice, are firmly established. Don’t go beyond them. I will let others address the substance of your question. That horse has been beaten to death long ago, notwithstanding never-ending attempts to keep riding it.

One approach taken on behalf of creditors is to challenge the qualified status of a 401(k) plan. ROBS plans are vulnerable to such a challenge. I suspect the reason that there are "many" ROBS plans is that the IRS does not have the resources to challenge them, so it may appear that they stand.

Yes the DOL is pretty useless (and often wrong) in this area, but plans are never required to review drafts; charging for a review of a draft is not a problem for the plan. Charging for review of something the plan is legally required to do gets more interesting, legally. However, plans are allowed to charge for expenses of administering an account and can allocate expenses reasonably. For example, someone chooses to invest in assets that are more costly to administer (e.g. private equity), the account can be charged the extraordinary extra out-of pocket expenses associated with the account activity. Not necessarily a perfect analogy, or dispositive of the question.

You do not want to rely on any prospective action by your former spouse with respect to benefits you expect to receive. That means you cannot count on an election of a QPSA or QJSA., even if the participant has been ordered to make the election. The plan will not give effect to the order concerning the election. It sounds like you do not want that as part of what you have been awarded anyway. More than that, I am not saying. You seem have some idea of the benefit options, but you also seem to be resigned to get what someone else says. Where is you lawyer in all this? I am perplexed about what is going on and what you want, so I am not going to speculate or fill the gap apparently left by your lawyer.