QDROphile

Sad common situation. The better way to look at it is that the township has one plan and has been snookered/bullied into multiple investment providers. The practical trick is how to provide for plan administation other than investment management. The two pigs at the trough probably won't cooperate. Whether or not the township can maintain a 457 plan is a matter of state law.

I write plans to require a full distribution at the first required distribution. The entire balance is also required to be paid at the next required distribution and required distributions thereafter. It is not so strange and there are good reasons for doing it that way. It may be unusual because people no longer think about what they are doing or could be doing. It's all about the efficiency of one-size-fits all mass production.

The "Yes" answer is safe if the plan sponsor prefers to be told what to do (prototype documents) rather than decide how it wants to conduct itself. If the sponsor does not like the answer, there are alternatives that can be implemented without changing the plan documents.

The question is answered by plan terms and corporate governance considerations. The answer may be different from plan to plan.

Unless there is more to tell, you could not use VCP with respect to the circumstances unless the IRS believes that holding dividends in suspense with the stock is a failure. Maybe you could tell us more.

I agree that vesting can be accelerated. That appears to be the only change to he plan or the individual's benefit.

Yes, but for most purposes the arrangements would be treated as a single plan. The multiplicity can create a lot of complexity to be managed. If you are talking to someone who is trying to sell you AFLAC products, they are probably not giving you a complete picture and they are probably not competent to give you a complete picture.

Can you conform the formalities of the plan with the terminolgy of the statute to make you feel better? In other words, can you design the arragement to have the entire cost of the premium be borne by the employees and have the amount of the employer cost of premium be a contribution to the plan? Would that freak everyone out even though it changes nothing except to provide a clear track of employer contributions through the plan?

If that is true, the employer would have to have some odd demographic/economic circumstances to be discriminatory based on utilization (which is only one part of the testing). With a small organization it migth be more likely to happen, but you don't isolate just the premium differential for examiniation. The higher employee share of the cost of the covereage is helpful for other discrimination concerns. See if section 125(g) (2) is helpful.

Are all the health plan premiums paid (or eligible to be paid) by all health plan participants through the cafeteria plan?

Good on 'ya if you can get someone to pay you for something that will provide extremely soft, speculative conclusions. I could understand if you were looking at what what would be required in each state with respect to specified circumstances. I think the analysis is pretty clear with respect to matters that are the province of the tax code and ERISA. For example, a registered domestic partner would not be successful in asserting a claim based on a failure of a pension plan to allow payment of a benefit a form other than a J&S annuity without the partner's consent. How would you evaluate the risk that some domestic partner would assert the claim? This is the United States. Anyone can sue for anything.

The order must be followed if it is qualified. The order can be amended to the extent state law and the court allows.

The system sometimes works?

The carry over will interfere with HSA eligibility unless the FSA is a special purpose FSA.

It sounds line the Groom article was dealng with employer's payment of the expenses being treateed as a loan to the plan (reimbursement being the repayment), which is a prohibited transaction. There is a PTE that covers the circumsntances. Any plan that regularly reimburses the employer for expenses should put arrangements in place to satisfy the conditions of PTE 80-26. Edit added citatation.

Federal law does not require coverage of same sex spouses.

I agree on both counts. I only wish more incompentent vendors/provider got punished for the usually arrogant incompetence. It may be a good idea to file a final Form 5500 -- not to fill everything out, but just to get it shut down in the system. Also, the terms of the plan that are there because of the mistaken understanding about ERISA continue in effect until amended.

The plan documents should say.. Is this a multiple employer plan or a single employer plan because of an affiliated service group relationship?

401(a) profit sharing plans that offer annuity distribution options can declare that the normal form of distribution is a lump sum. They can also eliminate the annuity form. If a 403(b) plan has migrated from an annuity environment to a mutual fund environment and has no annuity products, does it escape the annuity distribution rules?

Would the gift be treated as discharging an obligation of the emplopyer? Would it be treated as an employer contribution with respect to funding and funding limits? If the stock is stock of the plan sponsor, what are the consequences if the amount of stock causes the employer securities held by the plan to exceed the limit?

"Billing the employer" cannot be the correct terminology or procedure, even it the employer has decided that the correction will involve additional corrective contributions.

Mass Mutual may be thanked for its opinion about how to correct errors, but the employer and plan administrator have to decide. Where they look for advice is up to them.

If you want some lawyerly BS, there is a difference between not implementing terms of an election (e.g. not applying it to bonus) and excluding an employee from all deferrals (not enrolling). The correction is different.

Various courts have ruled that IRS approval of a correction does not bar a participant from prevailing on a claim that the correction still shortchanged the participant. The IRS approval relates to qualification of the plan and sometimes some income tax matters.

We encountered an IRS reviewer who challenges a single plan that has both a money purchase aspect and a CODA. There is a basis for that, but the design passed through two rounds of determination letters before encountering resistance.