QDROphile

If I were the IRS I would not approve for several reasons, but the real IRS might if the individual was not an HCE. An informal call to the IRS would be helpful. Whatever happens, the plan administrator needs to get to the bottom of the problem, and one aspect of the problem appears to be that the brokerage window is broken. What happened should never have happened, but similar things happen sometimes when brokers are involved don't know enough or care enough about compliance I would start from the proposition that the provider should be fired, and then see if the provider can explain why the provider should not be fired. One reason might be that the plan administrator or the employer is a screw-up. I repeat, something is fundamentally wrong for this to have happened.

If you do not think that the current situation is consistent with the intent of the order, you can apply for a modification of the order. Your prospects depend on state law. Most of the time, the medical child support order is a matter of child support. If the appropriate support is no longer being provided, the court might order the noncustodial parent to do something else. However, the practical options may be limited.

Rollovers can be limited to persons who have satisfied conditions to participate. Acceptance of rollovers can be stopped, as long as the amendment is not discriminatory.

The plan administrator is responsible for implementing the terms of a QMCSO. The health insurer is directed by the plan administrator in the same way that the plan administrator directs a health insurer to enroll participants and benefitciaries. In the real world for many employers the health insurer covers or assists with the administrative responsibilities, so the health insurer may be playing cute, but probably has no duty to pay attention to you. The plan administrator has the duty. The plan administrator is probably the employer.

Thank you to masteff for trying to provide a constructive answer. Abstract criticism and anlaysis can be pretty easy and unhelpful.

There is guidance for making the financial need determination if the safe harbor is not used. I find it very comfortable as long as the administrator is willing to give a little thought to each application. Apart from the rub with the prototype requirements, the big houses do not want to provide any individual attention (thought?) to applications, so they insist on the safe harbor. Now we can change our word play to "big house."

Sorry, no.

In informal Q&As at the ABA tax section meeting some years ago, the IRS said that purchasing a co-owner's undivided interest in a residence qualifies. Maybe the question related to exceeding the five year limit on plan loans. I think the Q&As can be still be found on the ABA website at http://www.americanbar.org/groups/committe...e_benefits.html Edit: The url posted above looks funny. I copied and pasted, but is suspect that the three dots should be deleted.

"Prototype plans are required to supend for 6 months." If you have a prototype plan, you are not required to have a thought. I suspect no thought about the six month suspension enters into a decison to adopt a prototype plan. Food for thought for the thoughtless. With respect to the allusions to abuse, just because I need some extra funds today to pay tuition does not mean that I shoud be prevented from saving some amount out of my next pay check that could not have gone toward tuition anyway. That is punitive, not preventive.

The six month suspension option is for the thoughtless.

Depends on the attittude of employer and the plan administrator about disqualifying operational failures. I would correct the mistake. Shame on someone for having a plan design with a six month suspension.

The plan sponsor has nothing to do with account records. Account records are not provided to anyone without participant consent absent legal compulsion (e.g. subpoena).

The employer"s group health plan is "go out and find individual policies and the employer will pay or reimburse premiums up to $xxx." The more detail the worse, such as different amounts for nonemployee coverage and different eligibility. The idea of what is a "plan" is shifting and seems to going away from finding a plan, especially in the severance pay arena. Your position is not beyond question.

Not as such.

The EBIA manuals have a "short course" summary section in the beginning. EBIA is available with an RIA Checkpoint subscription.

Too late now, but a careful use of escrow might have yielded a better result.

No. Yes, unless there is some legal compulsion that is brought to bear. The custodial agreement may have some interesting provisions that could lead to the IRA custodian taking certain actions without participant direction.

What was the intended action after the first faliure to make sure the second did not occur? Some failures lend themselves to prevention by correction or installation of procedures. Some falures are simply human error, and you can't prevent recurrance. Some human error can be minimized in the future by education or admonition. I would not worry too much about these circumstances, because it seems almost like an enrollment oversight -- human error that cannot be absolutely prevented. The plan people have some explaining to do and some promises to make. Perhaps a specific item needs to be added to an administrative checklist in connection with determining contributions/allocations.

You might be able to make something of the document you have with some ancillary documentation, such as records of corporate actions. The plan document that you cobble together could fail be a prototype but that is still a lot better than no document in the post-EGTRAA era. You might benefit from legal help in that endeavor. Are you saying that Morgan Stanley cannot find documentation of its product, or cannot find the documents that were actually adopted by the client? Certain amendments to prototype documents can be automatic and would not require specific plan sponsor action.

If the document was compliant on 1/15/2011 and the stupid 401(a)(9) amendment (if any) was adopted by 12/31/2011, what amendments would be needed to make the document compliant on 2/3/2012? It does not look like the plan will pass another year end before distribution of the newly discovered assets, so you don't have another Form 5500. You should think about whether or not there is an operational failure because of the misplaced assets and maybe a fiduciary breach. One might be affected by how the assets were invested while not in the plan.

I agree with your description if by "self correction" you mean both VCP and SCP.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding about what is considered wrong. I don't think anyone has argued about correcting a 415 excess under EPCRS. In at least one post I mistakenly used "VCP" when I should have used "EPCRS." It is wrong to think that EPCRS under 2008-50 is available to cover corrections year after year. The IRS posted its power point slides and its program on EPCRS correction in which it confirms that the correction is a one-time opportunity and the problem has to be fixed to prevent subsequent excesses. Outside of EPCRS you cannot correct an excess by distribution or otherwise. Do you dispute that? With respect to reductions of contribution amounts before actual contribution (the method required by the regulations), it is impractical to try to reduce elective deferrals unless you know very early in the year that there will be a section 415 excess and who will be affected.

"jpod, I agree with your answer after talking this around a little bit. However, if it were still 2011 and the deferrals had been discovered, I think then they could have been returned and run through payroll, subjecting them to Federal and State taxation. Sound right? Thanks! (and yes, it was in writing.)" No.

Give the employee a raise effective 2011 equal to the amount of the deferral. The FICA wages will need to be increased and additional FICA taxes paid for 2011.

Ask the question another way, and ask yourself. If I am responding to an IRS auditor who wants to know why someone was allowed to change election mid-year, what would I want to have in my file?