QDROphile

I have always operated under the limitation that a discretionary expansion of plan terms for contributions must be done by amendment not later than the end of the year to be effective for the year.

Are you asking about a qualified plan?

The plan would only restrict distribution of 401(k) benefits if (i) the plan had recieved a domestic relations order that applied to the 401(k) plan benefits, or (ii) the plan were so ill-advised that it set another standard for restriction in the plan's written QDRO procedures and the circumstances fit the standard.

Some trust institutions insist on at least nominal assets to be held in the trust before they consider the trust to be effective, but for tax purposes, having the documents properly adopted and executed by the end of the year should satisfy the IRS that the plan is effective for the year and post-year-end funding will relate to the year.

ERISA is all about the plan terms. You cannot even begin to deal with operational issues with first identifying all the relevant plan terms. You can't do that without all relevant plan documents.

Read the document more closely. Absent a specific provison for periodic matches, the terms relating to match usually refer to the plan year. It will not necessarily say that the match is based on the year in the same way that it would say the match is based on a payroll period -- the year is the presumptive measure. In any event, the plan administrator or other fiduciary should have authority to interpret the document and determine the relevant measure. You have a separate problem with "that's just when they began matching" and the problem is worse if the period for the match is not the year. What stopped the match and what was provied for stating the match again? for example, if the plan was simply amended to stop the match, no one gets a match for 2014. Maybe you have the abomination of a discretionary match. Good luck with that.

Have you considered the applicability of the blackout notice rules?

The whole idea sucks and any suggestion of a ROBS arrangement to facilitate a transaction (as opposed to pure ownership) also sucks. At best, ROBS transactions are sensitive and complicated, and when they are entered into the facilitate an abuse they are dangerous.

If the plan is written with a single vendor in mind, it may preclude multiple vendors and the provisions would need to be changed. the plan has to operate in accordance with its written terms As noted in the previous post, use of multiple vendors requires documented coordination provisions. Things that must be documented under the regulation standards are best viewed as plan documents. You may need to broaden your view about what constitutes the plan document. The plan document does not necessarily have just a single staple. The collection of documents should show a relationship to the plan.

The IRS has said informally that principles under EPCRS are apt for 457(b) plans (at least for government plans in certain circumstnaces), but there is no correction formality or assurance that corrections will provide relief. If I were dealing with a top-hat 457(b) plan, I would not follow the EPCRS guidance.

Why is it not taxable with respect to the date of credit of the converted amount to the Roth account? The timing of the credit date is determined by the plan's administrative practices the same as the distribution date of real distributions is determined by the administrative practices of the plan.

1. Such a transaction would not be a deferral. A deferral applies to compensation not yet received. 2. If 1 did not apply, without an exemption the transaction would be a prohibited transaction. An individual exemption would probably be prohibitive.

No one HAS to take the money. It is a good idea to check with a prospective provider if they will make IRAs available for mandatory distributions if the participant does not participate in setting up the IRA.

Also, if the participant had already taken a full distribution of benefits and then the corrective contribution occurred, no tail distribution would be required if the amount is under the minimum. That would effectively mean no contribution for the individual, but what needs to be done about that amount depends on circumstances. Under one VCP filing, the amount was treated as a forfeiture.

Any concern that the amendment itself (which subject to 401(a)(4)) could be discriminatory because it benefits only the HCEs? That gets us back to the old questions about neutral terms of an amendment the effectively benefits only HCEs when adopted but could be nondiscriminatory over time.

I got the IRS to approve age 40 for an ESOP (stock bonus plan, not PSP, but subject to same rules) in a determination letter filing. ESOPs have another layer of distribution rules that may have influenced the reviewer.

The IRS pays bounties on tax evaders. Is there an obligation not to report?

Is the plan being operated in accordance with its terms? What did the ocean say to the shore? Nothing. It just waved.

Does it help to know that a Roth account is treated as a separate contract under section 72? T.D. 9324.

If this is a personal question about your ability to contribute to a plan that covers you, the plan terms will state how after-tax contributions are made. If your question is more abstract, then consider that "salary reduction" in its most precise use refers to an arrangement in which compensation is reduced for income tax purposes in connection with a contribution, a so-called (gag) "pre-tax" contribution. Roth contributions messed up the meaning by defining the contributions as elective deferrals that do not reduce compensation.

ERISA 404© regulations require the ability to transfer funds among investment options at least quarterly. ERISA standards require that fees paid from plan assets be reasonable. Assuming that each of menu A and menu B would be section 404© compliant by itself and the cross transfer fees were charged by third parties based on their costs or fees generally applicable for the services under similar circumtances, one might be able to conclude that the fees were reasonable and the delay is reasonable. I suggest reconsidering if availability of a particular menu of funds is worth the trouble and if some suspect person or group is behind the demand.

And mind what portion of the deferred comp amount is included in FICA wages.

Are you saying that there will be no operations or pay to employees from Jan 1 until approximately March 1? Did you intend to use the term "merger" correctly?

Perhaps the plan document.

Entity A's cafeteria plan does not appear to be doing anything for entity B. Entity A's health plan might have some issues with providing benefits to Entity B's employees, but that would be a concern of the applicable state law. Your cafeteria plan question is probably something like, "Can Entity B's cafeteria plan provide for salary reduction by an Entity B employee for payment of the employee's cost of coverage by the Entity A health plan?"