J Simmons

Section 8.03 of Rev Proc 2007-71 specifically explains a re-exchange back into the 403b plan where the employee attempted a Rev Rul 90-24 exchange after such was forbidden as of 9/25/2007 cures the fact that the 'intermediary contract' vendor does not have an info sharing agreement with the ER. That would be one subset of what I have understood ebailey meant by 'cowboy contract'.

Thanks, QDROphile. Maybe I should have phrased my post as a question in Jeopardy style. That would have interjected a question into this thread.

I think that even if the 401k benefits, not extra benefits, are payable on disability, there has to be a determination of that disability (or not) by the plan when claimed. In that sense, those special disability claims procedures would have some applicability. Of course, if a 401k plan did not allow payout by reason of disability, then that would not be an issue for the SPD. Some employers like to have disability as a distribution trigger in addition to termination of employment so that the disabled employee can begin drawing 401k benefits out in lieu of the lost earnings, but also remain an 'employee' for purposes of health insurance coverage.

I don't think so. Perhaps the best argument--and it would be a reach--would be that the number of dependents has changed (Treas Reg § 1.125-4©(2)(ii)) because perhaps now most of the financial support of these children is provided by the state, not the employee.

What sources are those? The Puerto Rico Dept of the Treasury issued a letter dated May 13, 1992 addressing when and under what circumstances cafeteria plan contributions would be subject to payroll taxation. That presupposes that employees in Puerto Rico may participate in a cafeteria plan.

Hip shooting (i.e., no authority to cite): I think that the receipts must be from the FSO (not third parties) for a B Org ASG to exist. That appears to me to be a statutory distinction from the A Org ASG scenario where it is the services (not receipts) that can be either directly to the FSO or the third parties.

The allocation FOR the ER as opposed to for the EE? If by that you mean subtract for ER contributions allocated to the EE as well as EE contributions, then yes.

I think you should establish and stick to a frequency for valuations for distributions. Do not do it on an ad hoc basis. Too much potential for a pattern favoring the HCEs to develop. That being said, I would also suggest the more frequent over the less frequent, and suggest that you adopt the most frequent schedule that is practical under all the circumstances.

Astute question. From a brief review, there does not appear to be an exception to the special disability benefit claim procedures for pension plans (nor circumscription of the requirement to just welfare benefit plans). 29 CFR § 2560.503-1(a) and (d). It would appear that a pension plan that provides a disability benefit would need to outline in the SPD the special disability benefit claims procedures.

Check out Carmona v Carmona, Sept 19, 2008, D Nev. You may not have to recalculate if you have just now received the QDRO, after the benefits in question have already commenced and are in pay status. Check your plan language too. Get a legal opinion as to what is required.

25 USC §1169(a)(5)(B) requires "Each group health plan shall establish reasonable procedures to determine whether medical child support orders are qualified medical child support orders and to administer the provision of benefits under such qualified orders." Nothing more definite than that regarding your issue. I don't know that the 31 day requirement would qualify as reasonable. You might want to get a legal opinion before trying to impose that 31 day requirement. Generally, it would be better from a claims and cost management and business operations perspectives to know who you are covering and collect the premium from the employee than to have a court second guess you and order coverage you had denied.

The cowboy contracts that have received contributions since 1/1/2005 have problems if you offered the vendor (who refused) to subjugate its contracts to your new 403b plan if that vendor makes a loan without obtaining verifying certain information from you. The problem for such a cowboy contract would be the plan document requirement. If you are contacted by the cowboy contract vendor and asked for information or verification of information that is relevant to the vendor possibly making the loan (or not), then provide that requested information and give a caveat that the employer is unaware of what other loans (and balances) the employee may have from any other cowboy contract, and therefore the employer cannot give any type of approval, explicit or implicit, about the propriety of the inquiring vendor making the loan or what impact it might have on the cowboy contract or the employee's other cowboy contracts. Note, allowing loans/hardships from the 2 approved vendors involves hazards for the employer. That is because the eligibility might be based on information that does not take into account what has happened with a cowboy contract that same employee has.

Below Ground, Without naming names, can you relay to us what directions the valuable help guided you towards?

Agreed. The Labor Regs stripped out the net advantage that the rest of society benefits from the electronic communication age.

29 CFR § 2520.104b-1©

See discussion here

I am dealing with a situation where the participant died in 2008 and the death beneficiary requested the RMD by 12/31/2008. The plan document language is on our side. Yet the financial institution stubbornly refused right passed 12/31/2008. We have since filed for EPCRS relief for the plan qualification issue, and asking for abatement of the 50% penalty.

Just to be clear, there is no minimum distributions required of a non-spousal rollover for 2009? Is that what the question is, and what jevd confirmed?

If you were to get challenged by that IRS agent someday for giving HCEs zero, you might want to point out to that IRS agent Ms Gold's February 4, 2005 letter to Graff and Ferrigno where she explained the scope and reach of her October 22, 2004 EP directive (emphasis added).

Probably an EPCRS corrective amendment that removes, retroactively, the 1,000 hour requirement.

During the GUST II restatements, I know of a couple of dozen such situations where d-letter applications were made with Schedules Q and Demos 5 and 6, and none of the reviewers had a problem with the owners' children at zeros even though that's what made the cross testing pass.

If the plan officials and employer have no information to the contrary, the plan administrator ought to be able to rely on the participant's signed statement to the effect that the person is the participant's dependent, per the applicable definition.

For ERISA-governed plans, DoL FAB 2003-3 (May 19, 2003) allows plans to charge an individual plan account in a DC plan for administrative expenses pertaining solely to that account. That includes charging either the EE's or the ex-spouse's account for the costs of reviewing and processing a QDRO. Treas Reg § 1.457-10© engrafts the QDRO rules of IRC § 414(p) into the 457b plan context. However, I am unable to find anything that would permit a 457b plan to charge the employee or ex-spouse for reviewing and processing a QDRO. As ERISA is not at play to preempt state trust law, I'm wondering if anyone has run across this issue and concluded anything other than if the charge is reasonable, state trust law permits it to be charged against and paid out of the 457b plan trust.

It's not a cutback, so no 411d6 problem. Will this amendment, given its timing, disproportionately favor HCEs? If so, then it could be discriminatory. 1.401a4-5.

Elective deferrals are included in FUTA wages (IRC § 3306®(1)(A)) just as they are in FICA wages (IRC § 31.3121(v)(1)(A)).