QDROphile

Don't get involved with any pieces unless you are prepared to take responsibiity for the whole. The last thing the fiduciaries need is to have advisers working at cross purposes. Also keep in mind that some fiduciary may be facing some liability for getting the plan to this point in the mess so there may be adverse interests involved in workin out solutions.

So it would be under a cafeteria plan for an employee who chose the cash instead of the health benefit.

Aren't you describing a section 125 plan? And don't we suspect that the employer is not complying with the law by having a written plan document and following appropriate procedures under section 125?

Don't they have an operational faliure that can be corrected?

Come across incompetence in drafting? Sure. I am suprised that the document got a determination letter if it really does not address dispostion of forfeitures.

What does "signed" mean? It is evidence of a required event that has come to be mistaken as a requirement itself. You may be able to find other evidence of the event.

My response is mistaken. I thought you were dealing with excess deferrals, not faliure to implement deferral elections.

It is possible that the plan document covers excess deferrals in some detail. Otherwise you need to look at section 402 of the tax code and related regulations.

The dental benefits may well be excepted benefits, but an FSA can never be used for payment of premiums. Payment for dental coverage (premiums) would have to be through another feature of the cafeteria plan (some refer to it as "premium only")

Are you referring to Q&A 12? It covers only policies obtained through an exchange.

While there are certainly issues with funding individul policies through a cafeteria plan, you seem to be saying it is precluded. What has happened to cause that conclusion?

You said any comments. Who is advising about securities law compliance? And if you think that is an impertinent or puzzling question, you really need to make sure that no one will ever claim that is within your duties and your service contracts with MEP 401(k) plans should disclaim any responsibility for advising about securities law compliance.

Are you married to the FA or something? The FA does not touch any funds unless the FA is a custodian and there is no reason for that. The money goes from the employer's payroll to the IRA that is set up and designated by the employee to the employer. Under a 5305, the employer chooses an IRA provider, sets up the IRAs for each eligible employee with the provider, and the deferred amounts are sent to the provider with instructions about the amounts to be credited to the various employees' IRAs.

Agree with Bird plus the employer sends the funds to the participant's IRA. The participant never touches the money.

5304 provides that the individuals choose their own IRA providers. The employer does not designate the provider, as under 5305. Many financial institutions do not have a product that supports a 5304 so it can be tough on individuals to find an IRA to go with the SIMPLE.

If the employer wishes to take the position that the plan is not an ERISA plan, then everything about QDROs has to be done by venders. The employer cannot be involved. I would argue that the employer's limitation on venders based on which ones will administer QDROs could be a problem unless there is an adequate number of venders.

There are many contract providers that will handle the domestic relations orders. They did it of necessity and control before the tax regulations put into question whether or not we really have non-ERISA plans any more, except for government and church plans. The relationship question is now more complex because it puts the ERISA question sqaurely in faces. Under ERISA the QDRO determination and adminstration if a fiduciary function. Some providers are willing to step up and others try to aoid the question or avoid fiduciary status.

A lot "shoulds" in the last post are the opinions of the poster and not legal requirements. I don't necessarily disagree with the "shoulds" with that understandiing. With respect to your question about what the plan is required to do under ther terms of a domestic relations order, see section 414(p)(3)(A) if the Internal Revenue Code. We don't have any guidance about how far that goes. The provision is a refuge for victims of Fidelity, J.P. Morgan, and other system-driven administration.

The document at the site provides a nice example of how the Depatement of Labor can't even read the statute when it comes to QDRO matters: "QDROs must contain the following information: The name and last known mailing address of the participant and each alternate payee"

Is the employee getting any emoluments in July? Employment is as employment does is a good standard.

How can can you start in 2014 a profit sharing plan for the 2013 calendar year?

What year would be ther intitial year of the new profit sharing plan?

Did the person who drafted the plan have the language or legal skills or foresight to distinguish beween "add" and "offset? Plan interpretation is usually the province of the plan administrator, although the plan administrator can look to many sources for advice.

The EBSA website has a lot of resources for fiduciaries and directed to fiduciaries. I don't know where one gets the idea there is anything new about the idea that fiduciaries need to know their responsibilities and that they would need education if they don't already understand them. Actually, I do. The DOL has been especially active on the issue of fees and expenses and making fiduciaries aware of responsibilities to understand fees and evaluate them. That has been coupled with efforts to make it more difficultt for providers to diguise fees.

It is truly noble and upright for a record keeper to separately state elements of the record keeper's fees. Whether or not it is reasonable for the fiduciary who negotiates the fees to approve a certain fee for something that is provided (or whether or not to provide it) is another matter and involves evaluation of what is being provided and the value of it to the plan and its participants. To answer you question, I do not see plans with such an "automatic" charge. Provision of investment information, tools, and advice can be part of the services contract.