GBurns

You say that you have a QDRO with Continental Can which is a company that ceased to exist sometime in the mid 1980's. However, you say that it was sold to Kiewit, so I have to assume that your QDRO is connected to a division that was sold before US Can took the rest. Why would a DRO be issued to a long defunct company and which plan administrator said it was a QDRO ? But you then reference Dean Foods which was acquired by Suiza around 2000. Who has been paying the benefits all these years or Who has been issuing participant information and notices etc ? In fact how do you know that pension benefits exist without knowing exactly where etc ?

I am confused regarding who can/should issue the 1099, and if one should even be issued at all. 401king said that "they are going to issue a 1099 with a code 8". They being " the IRA institution in which she rolled the funds into." Without the consent of an account holder, what gives an IRA custodian the authority to correct an account, return a deposit to another party etc etc etc ?

I hope that all the members of this fine community have/had a very happy Thanksgiving Day and wish that you and your loved ones enjoy many more. I personally give thanks for having been allowed to enjoy the opportunities available in this wonderful country.

My 2 cents worth I am concerned that this issue is being driven by the employer (client) since the OP did state " I have a client that is asking why " and " Client now wants to exclude him from the plan " . I suspect that there is the possibility of coercion of the employee. I doubt that anyone would voluntarily give up "free" money to which they are entitled. IMHO, this is an employer who is trying to find an easy way to deny a benefit to an employee. I would tell him tough luck and advise legal counsel, on the various issues raised, if he wants to proceed. This thread has had many good suggestions but I think that I am seeing over-reactions to writing style. Let's stick to the message and leave the messenger's style out of it. I doubt that many of us write prose for a living.

Do you have a mainframe computer on which you run the administrative system software and need to change the hardware ? Or is it that you need administarative system software that runs on a mainframe computer ?

I guess you people haven't heard. Al Gore was just nominated to be Secretary of Lock Boxes and Trust Funds. Maybe that will get the greenback.

WoW! That is some research capability. I hope that access is available on the TC website since my subscriptions to many online services have lapsed.

Section 125 is what allows the employee to pre-tax the employee share. It has nothing to do with 105. Section 106 is what allows the employer's share to be tax free to the employee. It has nothing to do with 105. An HRA does not allow employee contribution and the employer contribution cannot be conditioned on the employee's 125 pre-tax amount etc. So I wonder how you will be able to "draft an HRA to take care of the situation, since this is definitely compliant." A section 105 MERP (non rollover HRA) does not have employee contibutions. I think that the TPA is correct and that the employee must be the policy holder, but that could have been changed by the new Proposed Treas Regs. However, since a minor cannot apply for an insurance policy, I doubt that one could be purchased in the child's name anyhow. But I wonder if any of us understand what you are posting since you clearly state that "NOTE: none of the other issues JSimmons brought up are valid in this case."

You are right I really should especially for the new year. It is time for Change.

I doubt that you would find such cases in Tax Court, they would have been resolved before that stage. I also doubt that you would find any anywhere else, since the lawsuit would not be based on the issue of being updated but rather on a particular feature such as vesting rights, eligibility etc.

You budget for current liabilities, you do not budget for future liabilities except for that which you wish to reserve for. The method of accounting has nothing to do with forecasting or accumulating reserves for future liabilities. Recognizing liabilities for budget or accounting purposes means taking into account or including. It does not mean the same thing as it means in other areas

Why re-invent the wheel ? What is wrong with what is available from people like Corbel or the investment providers ?

Not being recognized in the Budget has nothing to do with forecasting the liability and funding requirements. The very same Page 171 of the link that you provided, clearly points out the use of one of their forecasting systems PIMS.

What do you mean by "an employer wishes to cover individual premiums for dependents " ? Cover How ? Does the employer wish to pay the premiums ? Does the employer wish to make premium payment by the employee an option ? Is it dependent only coverage or is it the dependent portion of the premium ? Is it under individual policies or it is a group policy ?

mjb I do not see why it could be a problem or concern. Most salary elections are for an annual amount broken down according to payroll frequency. I have only seen a few that emphasized the periodic payroll amount. So the emphasis is on the annual election amount. In fact, this seems to have been the root cause for the problem in the OP. That being said the correction is only being done in order to correctly comply with the salary reduction agreement not to change it.

Take the money back through the payroll system and correct the payroll figures accordingly. Then start to do it more correctly.

Ask plan administrators or those who have experienced IRS or DoL audits of any sort of plan, or for that matter any audit of any sort. It is the mole hills that become mountains. In audits there is no such thing as almost correct or just a little pregnant. I doubt that you have ever gotten away with telling an auditor that an error was not really of any consequence. I don't believe in running unnecessary risks based on speculation rather I believe in a rational interpretation of the law and experience with its application. I could not be so dismissive based on my experiences and my research.

Does that in any way diminish the sentence ?

The answers seem somewhat self-evident even though speculative since this is all hypothetical or "iffy". It all depends on what the government's plan is.

mjb What makes you more competent to discuss this matter ? Being pompous and arrogant is not a qualification. Items or issues deemed to be in the interest of national security are solely determined by the government. If they deem the condemnation of any particular piece of property to be in the interest of national security, that is their perogative and not subject to your interpretation. The affected party if, of course, free to litigate if that is possible in the particular case. Since you are a lawyer, I thought you would know that precedent is not always followed.

Are you being serious ? "How could the federal government seize private property such as 401k assets without having to pay the account holders?" How can they wiretap and eavesdrop? How can they detain withoout charging? Rendition ? Noriega? The federal government does many things that could be questioned. Some done in the name of national security and some things for reasons they never explain. What do you think covert activities are ? As a last resort they could pass a law or just get a Signing Statement or Executive Order. "What experience do you have in condemnation actions?" An irrelevant question. You do not need to be an auto mechanic to know when your car won't start.

I expected something more enticing. Maybe hoped would be a better word.

I recall that the cases and reports all had the private land go first to the government THEN the government's ownership is transferred to the private developer. I do not recall any reports of direct to private developer incidents. If I am correct then the flow of 401(k) money could follow that precedent in which there was no fair value paid by the government.

While it is the emloyee's fault for not reporting the change, that error pales in comparison to the employer's error in reimbursing before verifying. Aside from the error caused by the change, this is also a systemic problem whiich could carry consequences. It is not a simple oversight, it is a system and plan design failure or at best, a failure to operate a plan in accordance with its PD.

There are quite a few people in places like New London, CT; Palo Alto, CA; Long Branch, NJ; Delaware, Missouri and other areas, who seem to be wondering about the 5th Amendment and the issue of emminent domain.