QDROphile

You need to assess the securities law issues. The MEP might not be eligible for the standard exemption from registration and from the investment Compant Act.

Wait to see if the plan receives a domestic relations order. Evaluate the order received, if any. Bemoan the fact that the Deprtment of Labor was completely unhelpful in response to the mandate from Congress to provide guidance about the effect of death before a domestic relation order is determined to be qualified.

You appear to have a dispute about the meaning of the words in the judgment. The terms are ambiguous -- if a lawyer drafted the language the lawyer is incompetent. Although not necessary, it is quite common to divide each plan. Personally, I would interpret the language to means that the former spouse gets 50% of the pension, 50% of the 401(k), etc.

My simple reading of the post does not include the interpretation of the responses to the effect that the participant can take a partial distribution that does not include the loan. Subject to the usual caution about following plan terms, there is nothing wrong with taking a distribution that includes a loan balance. The loan balance cannot be rolled to an IRA. In all likelihood, the balance will be taxable and will be included in the amount that is subject to mandatory withholding.

How could an administrative matter be a settlor function? This is one of the evils of the malpractice of naming the sponsor as plan administrator or having the administrative contracts with the sponsor. No comment on the original post.

If you are associated with the plan, your question is impertinent.

You are really talking about distributions in kind. In addition to the valuation issue, applying withholding rules can be more complicated.

Does the IRA custodian have any duty? The IRA custodian does not have the same concerns as a qualified plan administrator.

Direct the distribution to an IRA. The distribution will not have been made because the participant will check with the receiving plan before the distribution and will learn of the receiving plan's refusal to accept the prospective rollover. The participant will provide distribution instructions appropriate for a direct rollover to an IRA that the participant established for the rollover.

The only funny part of the post is imagining a 100% ESOP owned company in 2013 when the ESOP apparently owns no stock in 2013.

Nothing is novel because the new guidance is just a minor extension of the Treasury Regulation; it provides examples, not a new standard. The principle is that the plan adminstrator has to have a reasonable belief the amount is an eligible rollover distribution and that does not involve an investigation appropriate for a reasonable determination that the amount is an elgible rollover distribution (e.g. determination letter). Intent that the sending plan is qualified is enough. The standard is low because of policy favoring transportability.

I start with the requirement that the securities must be registered (plan interests and employer securities) because the usual exemptions for 401(k) plans do not apply. It is possible that the arranagement operates under an exemption, but determining the exemption would involve sophisticated securities law questions. The registration issues did not start with the recent acquistion of A. There is a similar issue under the Investment Company Act.

It is involved in a lot of ROBs transactions. How involved it is other than as an inexpensive custodian, I cannot say.

As a former customer of Sterling Trust, I can say I am so pleased to be a former customer and wish I have been a former customer longer.

This arrangement has a lot of lawyers advising it, including securities lawyers as well as ERISA lawyers. If it does not, then it needs them now to address the mess that it is in. Ask the lawyers.

"Our client is a corporate medical office *** The document allows the employer to name additional or successor trustees." So the employer, not the individual trustee's personal representative, appoints the sucessor. A corporation survives the death of its shareholder. How the employer acts to appoint is a corporate matter that is not any business of the custodian as long as the corporate action in in accodance with plan terms and is communicated in conventional terms to the custodian.

There is no express time limit under federal law. State law may be another matter. However, as time goes by and developments occur, the ability to implement the division becomes more limited. By waiting until your benefits started, she lost the ability to have certain aspects of the benefit. By waiting until you remarry, she will lose other aspects of the benefit. By waiting until you die after remarriage, she will lose a lot -- maybe everything. What "half of your pension" means changes with developments. If she tries to recapture what "half of your pension" meant in 2011, some apparently uneven things may happen if she is sucessful. On the other hand, she may just be losing benefits as time passes without establishing her rights through a QDRO. If you want some certainty, you should take charge and get a QDRO implemented.

Although this article relates to Roth conversions, it it worth reading for the rollover, pro-rata, and ordering principles involved with attempted splits. http://www.kitces.com/blog/splitting-after-tax-401k-distributions-for-roth-conversion/

Not mandatory, but there is a different mandatory six-month suspension rule unrelated to the hardship distribution rules. The six-month suspension rules for hardships are for those who wish to suspend use of brains for hardship distribution administration.

For all the practical value of awarding a zero interest, I am not so sure it meets the definition of QDRO: "creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right *** to receive all or a portion of the benfits ***. Can the portion be zero? Is nothing sacred? Certainly if there is no domestic relations order, the alternate payee gets nothing. Does that phenomenon completely occupy the "nothing" space in the law, or can an award of a zero portion come to the same result throught the definition of QDRO? A more pertinent part of the law might 414(p)(5). Does that suggest that a QDRO can only divest a former spouse of surviving spouse rights (being the benficiary unless consent to another?). That is My 2 Cents's question. Except for that question, most of the time it will not matter if a zero award is treated as a QDRO or not. It is just a confirmation of what the absence of a domestic relations order leaves uncomfortably uncertain for some amount of time and causes the Department of Labor to look stupid in its failure to read sections 414(p)(6) and (7) correctly.

It is complicated and risky to use a number of hours other than based on the ERISA conventions if actual hours are not recorded and counted. In any event, the plan docment needs to specify how hours are counted. Standard payroll conventions are not appropriate.

One can always argue desserts and it is difficult to referee such arguments. Putting those arguments aside, you might look at it as though if you could have actually carved out the $195,000 and paid it to your former spouse on 9/28/2012 ("segregated"), you would have nothing to do with the amount and you would not have paid any further attention. Since the $195,000 essentially belonged to your former spouse as of the valuation date it only makes sense that the earnings and losses on that amount should go to her. Take a good look at the word "losses" to help you get an intellectual grip on the concept. If your account lost money ever since 9/28/2012, do you think you should pay her $195,000 today when you are ready to segregate the funds?

The law did not change recently, but it is a common oversight. Part of a fix that is impleemtned by some involves paying the FICA and Medicare taxes on the amounts distributed, but any fix should be advised by a compentent adviser. Intiating and maintaining a deferred compensation plan should be advised by a compentent adviser -- another commmon oversight.

Securities law issues must be resolved or ignored. The registration exemption may be lost until the ownership gets realigned. Ignored is the general approach. It tends to work pretty well because so few people are aware of the issue and it hs no regulatory priority.

In general you might consider how you are complying with section 415 limits when absence is extended. Your mention of carrier suggests that a disabled individual's compensation, as defined in the plan, might be very low or zero.