QDROphile

What does the plan say? Even if the law would allow an election based on the event, the plan has to allow it. Perhaps you can get an adequate statement, or absence of an adequate statement, for your answer from the plan terms. Besides, there is more latitude for interpreting plan terms than determining the law. But you have to be careful if you conclude that the plan allows the election. Then you have to determine that the terms or interpretation of the plan is consistent with the law allows.

Distinction intended.

Adopting an investment policy is a fiduciary function.

What does the fix-it guidance say?

The failure would have to be corrected under EPCRS and I doubt that either current or retroactive "withholding" would be acceptable. VCP is not necessary if the conditions for SCP are met depending on you view about SCP. Some people are SCP-phobic unless a prescribed fix in Rev. Proc, 2008-50 fits exactly. The IRS has informal guidance on its website about acceptable correction of disregarded deferral elections. The guidance is different from the guidance in Rev. Proc. 2008-50 concerning overlooked participants.

Maybe you could do it if the individual did not want the payment early. ;-)

The situation is different because the plan can quantify the mistake. With employees who were not given the opportunity to defer, the plan has no idea what the employees would have elected. I think the IRS has some guidance about the situation under a "fix-it" piece on the web site. A search for "fix-it" might turn up the document. There is other "fix-it" guidance on the web site, too.

Wow. They are easy to console. What other critical business or legal advice do they rely on from unaccountable anonymous strangers based on twitter-depth descriptions? ERISAtoolkit's response is probably corrrect and the way it should be in most relationships. But there may be some other factors to consider, especially if you provide other services that might make you a tax return preparer or involve you in some way with reporting. Apart from facing the potential liability of the preparer or reporter, you might want to warn the client that you might not be able to perform the services or that you would have to report something that would be adverse to their scheme.

So are the Powers That Be now sure that they are covered?

Assuming that you have have taken into account the universal availablitity rules applicable to elective deferrals in section 403(b)(12) and are talking about ERISA coverage requirements, extensive regulations address how hours are counted.

Nonqualified deferred compensation in a pass through entity such a as a partnership is difficult because somebody (or bodies) gets to pay taxes for the year on the amount "set aside" for the year. Who will that be? The partnership could make a naked promise to pay $250,000 at some future date, but the payment would come out of cash flow at the date of payment. Who will be there to get the expense hit compared to who made the promise?

30 days is conventional, but not mandated. The plan doccument should have terms that cover the issue.

Agree with jpod.

Form of benefit is an issue. If benefits have started, they will have started in some form, such as a joint and survivior annuity. The QDRO can divide the payments, but cannot reform the benefit unless the plan allows and most plans will not. If the QDRO divides the benefit before payments start, then the QDRO can divide the value and most plans will allow each person to have an annuity form of benefit.

If you have a smart plan document, it will have provisions about disclaimer of benefits under section 2518 of the tax code. Don't coount on it. Without the provisions, the fiduciary has to decide if the disclaimer is permissible without express plan terms.

Examples 2 and 3 do not speak to the distribution/deemed distribution issue. Example 6 says that because there can be no distribution, the loan cannot be offset. That suggests to me that maybe any time there is an offset, there is a distribution. I realize that the examples do not zero in on the specific issue, so we do not have an answer in that regulations. The last sentence of Q&A-9(b) suggests that offset and distribution are not inextricably linked. I would accept the answer that the plan terms do not provide for distribution of the loan unless other balances are also distributed (e.g the plan provides for lump sum distribution only). I would not desgn a plan that way. Maintaining loans after a deemed distribution is an administrtive burden. Among other things, the plan can end up with after-tax amounts.

Please explain why the loan was not treated as an offset distribution after termination of employment.

You need to get back to basics to figure out what to do. The status change rules under section 125 address situations that allow an employee to change a salary reduction election, which is otherwise irrevocable for the year. The plan rules often coordinate with the health plan coverage rules, but the concern is the covereage rules. Take a look at what is changing and what is not. A change in ultimate income tax effect is not necessarily something that concerns the section 125 rules or plan coverage rules.

Reporting violations do not affect plan qualification. They are not covered by EPCRS.

One would need more information about the desgin of the plan relating to investments, investment authority, expense policies, accounts, and participant interests.

If the Code is clear, what has "someone" offered as an explanation for the assertion that causes you to be concerned?

The exemption from the ERISA pension plan requirements is not directly related to section 409A. The first concern is violation of ERISA. If the plan is an ERISA pension plan and not exempt, then the things that must be done to comply with ERISA, such as funding and maintaining a trust, would be incompatible with section 409A requirements. If you can live with the ERISA noncompliance, section 409A does not care who is covered.

Are you asking whether or not it is legal to quietly dispose of a plan document that has been adopted as if it had never existed?

I concur, but I can imagine circumstances for an excpetion.

My experience with regulators is that they are predisposed to challenge not counting, and only wonder about counting when the circumstances are unusual and favor HCES or structurally favor HCEs. The counting rules tend to be liberal in favor of counting. It is safe to interpret them liberally. If an employer is holding out a benefit and wants to provide the benefits to regular employees, including part-time employees, , I am in favor of it for philosophical and policy reasons. I see no risk in edging toward overcounting (except in unusual or obviously improper circumstnaces) and I see both legal risk and employment negatives in trying too hard to achieve a close shave. If the employer wants to count, that seals it for me. If you want to show you are an alert and competent professional, by all means confirm the employer's desire along with the advice that another outcome may be possible.