FormsRstillmylife

The participant is probably hoping for cash in hand. A revised QDRO can reduce the amount awarded to the former spouse, but it cannot create a withdrawal right for the participant. A QDRO cannot compel the plan to distribute to the alternate payee. A court might be able to compel the alternate payee to apply for her distribution. The trick would be then to have her write a check to the participant based on these funds. The participant would be better off with a revised QDRO increasing his account and hardship withdrawals for a couple missed mortgage payments.

User fee is based on the most recent 5500, not the year of the error. You are stuck with the $3,000 fee, regardless.

So the plan could be amended to read: "In the event of the death of a participant who has an accrued benefit under the plan (whether or not he is an active participant), 100% of the participant's account balance(s) as of the date of death ..."

Isn't there a state law issue? Amounts may only be withheld from pay check per employee's direction. State labor dept. may require that the excess withholding be restored to the paycheck, if it were somehow to be involved. I know, the employee doesn't care; but it should be a consideration.

If he did no due diligence on her ability as a financial investor, what is the fiduciary liability of Bob if Sue tanks the plan investments? The take-over of the plan is not an automatic part as it would be in a stock sale. It is a voluntary action of the plan fiduciaries. Or, am I thinking about this incorrectly?

The law as written references the need for the participant to be claiming the child as a dependent on his tax return. You will have no proof of this until April 15 of the following year. So, you need not only a representation that the child is the participant's but that the child will be claimed on the tax return. Perhaps require a copy of last year's 1040 showing the mother as a joint filer? IRS guidance cannot come too soon.

We have been anticipating 2020.

When permitting amendment through the CBA, I add: If and to the extent such amendment purports to adopt a provision that would disqualify the plan, such purported amendment shall be of none effect.

In some cases I am dealing with a participant that is cashing the minimum required distribution check, but the participant should have been paid through a J&S annuity under the terms of the money purchase plan. The participant is 80, not 65 or 70. His spouse has a right to a 50% survivor annuity. Where do you find an insurance company that will let the trustee buy an immediate J&S annuity without the participant signing off on the forms, even at 70? I understand the search requirements; we have dealt with DOL audits of clients. The question is what do you do when you have someone to pay, but the participant will not sign the forms or you locate the person when he is 85? Money purchase plan is to pay through an annuity, unless the participant and spouse consent to installments.

The default benefit under an money purchase plan is a joint and survivor annuity. As a defined contribution plan, it cannot pay this benefit straight from the account; it must acquire an annuity from an insurance company. What insurance company will sell an annuity contract to a plan trustee without a participant signature on the contract application? MetLife already has its hands full trying to find participants on contracts it sold to willing buyers. An MPP with a retirement once ever so many years cannot buy a group annuity for just this. With investments all in mutual funds for active participants, there is no insurance company involved in the administration or normal investment. Does anyone know of an insurance company taking this business?

Your nondiscriminatory job classification exclusion is you must be John or Mary to participate? How does this pass 410(a)?

We would allow it, if the participant's name will be on the deed.

Our website for participants shows the amount available went the participant logs in and goes to the hardship withdrawal tab.

Day 1 the participant and spouse reach a property settlement. Day 2 the divorce decree is issued. Day 3 the participant dies. Day 4 the DRO is executed. I do not agree that death on Day 3 defeats the property settlement. The marital property existed as of the date of divorce. DROs are often issued weeks and months after the property settlement and divorce decree. The Plan is taking the position that a final decree of divorce cannot be issued before the QDRO is in place. The Plan has 18 months to make up its mind whether a DRO is a QDRO. Dear participant, we will let you know within 18 months when you can finalize that divorce.

The plan could provide for participant individual brokerage accounts as an investment option. Schwab has PCRA accounts that would let him play with his money as do other mutual fund houses.

A DC plan with accelerated vesting only or even with qualification for an allocation based on disability may be tempted to rubber stamp all disability claims. After all, the new regulation is only really an issue if the claim is being questioned. But, the DC plan is also charged with making a proper determination on the 1099-R as to whether the distribution should be subject to the 10% premature distribution.

But normally a new vesting schedule can be effective for all contributions made on or after its prospective effective date. My 2-year ineligible employee participates, but there is no allocation in his 100% vested account. Should the graded vesting schedule have to be effective next year in order for these employees to have an opportunity to receive an allocation in the year of participation? The thought would be that you must amend eligibility this year and bring them in before you can amend the vesting schedule from anything but 100% vesting as of next year.

But if I said add an employer contribution provision to the 403(b) that is subject to 401(a) and bring the whole plan under the ERISA requirements, that is pretty standard to the industry.

Are they trying to say that the 2005 prototype should have been restated for EGTRRA by April 30, 2010? A 2011 restatement would not meet that timing requirement.

Our forms permit the HCE to elect the lump sum. The plan then pays the SLA amount each month to the retired HCE until plan funding permits the lump sum to be distributed. This allows for the lump sum remainder to be payable to his beneficiaries, one month at a time.

Under a money purchase defined contribution plan, the plan must provide QJSA and QPSA. The spouse has a right to 50% of the account paid as a QPSA.

State government plans subject to Act 205 do not file Form 5500 nor do they do compliance testing. Signed, Your Competition in PA

If the Plan Administrator is obstructing the eligible rollover distribution, he is not operating the plan in accordance with the plan document. As a participant, I think I would call the DOL and sic them on him.

http://sortedbyname....es/r107240.html just told me that my mother-in-law's mother is 120 years old. I think they missed a death certificate, because I know I did not miss her funeral.

401(a)(35) investment diversification rights apply if this is not an ESOP.