pmacduff

calling Mr. Poje or Fredman: (This happend to me once before when I did an update and I cannot for the life of me remember exactly all the steps!) Anyway - my ADP/ACP tests are printing with page numbers since the update. Due to the way that we assemble our valuation reports I do not want the automated page numbers to appear. I know how to modify the standard report in the Relius directory, but seem to remember something about having to take the exisiting file out of my Relius directory and replacing it with my modified file in order for this to work. I can't save my modifications over the original. HELP! Thanks in advance!

FWIW - our MEP clients term that employer from Plan participation (in writing) and give all participants the regular distribution options (rollover, direct pay, etc.) Our Multiple Employer plans are pretty large and there isn't an issue of partial termination. I suppose if you had an Employer leave the plan that accounted for more than 20% of the "workforce" in the Plan, you might examine the partial term question.

As a former snooze button dependent, I can tell you that I used to do it because I needed alittle time to completely wake up before I could actually get myself out of bed - (I was not one of those who could wake up and jump right up!) I lived alone for a long time and this worked well for me. I now have a husband who rises 45 minutes before I need to get up & I no longer need my trusty snooze button.

Well, we already know that the current order is invalid with regard to DOMA, so I don't really see where the client would pay for an ERISA attorney to reinforce that notion. As Plan Adminsitrator the client plans to notify all applicable parties that the order is not a valid order and include all of the information regarding "why". Perhaps the participant and/or ex-spouse can be referred to an ERISA attorney. The participant's account, however, is not that large (less than 30K) and the $$ going to the ex is not much (less than 1/2).

I did not mean to throw stones about the cynicism and I thank you Peter for your comments - the client's attorney has also indicated that the participant/ex & lawyers for both may want to explore the "dependent" AP route as well for resolution. The problem may tie back to the taxation issue, though, as I don't think the dependent pays the taxes (by the nature of being a dependent?). Thank you all for your insight on this issue and thoughtful replies!

FWIW - we use Relius/Relius Docs too and I agree with you that the entry date in this example is 01/01/2010 as the employee does not satisfy the eligibility until that point. I find sometimes with the Relius software that it is something small I missed in the specs coding that causes the problem. Under Plan entry - do you have whole or half years credited for past service? If half years, I think that can sometimes do it. Also, how is your payroll data entered (i.e. monthly, quarterly, annually)? I have found Relius for some reason will measure on the 1/2 year instead of plan year, again I think it's probabaly a simple coding change that will help. In any event, I would override in my system to the 01/01/2010 date. Sorry I didn't have a more concrete answer!

FiduciaryGC...very cynical I must say...(i.e. "reason to care") Our clients are all in the small plan market. Some feel an obligation toward their employees to be helpful if they can. This Sponsor (who is also the Plan Administrator) does not intend to do anything that would jeopardize the Plan. They simply want to try and do right by assisting the employee if possible. I agree with K2retire, we often see divorcing participants (and their attorneys) get all hung up on dividing up the retirement plan assets. On the other hand I have had a few of those clients/attorneys who say hey - you take the house, you take the cars, etc. and you each keep your retirement plans... I like those!

Thanks Sieve but the Plan doesn't allow in-service until NRA which is 65 (participant isn't 59 1/2 yet anyway). The client was trying to find a way that the participant would not have to pay taxes (since the order stated that the AP was responsible for that). Therefore the loan option was raised. After my own research and the helpful answers posted here - I know this is not a qualified order I'm just trying to help my client & the participant find a workable solution.

The original DRO that was prepared called for the recipient to pay the taxes. But I guess there would be no taxes to the ex if the participant goes the loan route. Perhaps the participant could take a smaller loan in that case?!?!? The loan idea was mentioned as it seems to be the only option available for this participant to get funds out of the Plan in order to pay the ex. The participant works for a pretty healthy company and the company is extending themselves to help this employee - so long term employment is assumed...as much as it can be....

thank you for all the good information and direction. I have passed a lot of info on to the client for review. They are consulting their attorney. The client would like to help the participant without, of course, jeopardizing the Plan. The plan allows for loans and does not have any restrictions on the purpose of the loan, so we're thinking perhaps the participant could take a plan loan and be able to make the payment to the "ex" that way.

Ok - I thought perhaps there was a thread regarding this, but cannot seem to find one exactly on point... I have a client here in NY who has an employee residing in MA. Said employee was married under MA law to a partner of the same gender. Said marriage is now dissolved. Employee's partner's attorney has prepared a DRO and forwarded it to the Plan Administrator for review. The DRO seems to be in order as far as the necessary information required by the client's plan. This specific issue is NOT addressed in the Plan QDRO procedural section nor any other section of the Plan. Can/should/must the plan recognize the marriage and therefore the DRO? Are there any other special issues that the client needs to be aware of? all opinions appreciated.

MSN...at the ASPPA conference I sat in a Sch C seminar (as I have a number of large plans which require the annual audit and "long form" 5500). In those instances and from what I could gather from the speaker, ALL fees are reportable on Schedule C for the large plans (over 100 count), even those paid by the Employer. I believe the idea there is for the form to reflect an overall picture of the total plan fees. While I realize this does not apply to the Sch I filer, I'm thinking that with all the focus on fee disclosure these days it may eventually affect small plans as well.

I don't have a cite for you but we were told at that ASPPA conference that it is only fees paid by the Plan/ from plan assets.

jpod - I can tell you with our client base that the $$ not going in to the Plan would not be going to the Employees another way (i.e. pay increases or other benefits). I'm not trying to trash our clients, I just know that the majority if not all of our owners would not keep the expense of the Qualified Plan if they could not be reaching the individual max of $49,000 ($54,500 with catchup) with a lower contribution percentage to their rank & file employees and certainly would not boost another benefit or payroll because the plan goes away; even if it costs them more in taxes. I understand what Sieve is saying about history and all that, I'm just reiterating that in our area these plan will go away if cross-testing is eliminated or even just changed/reduced so that the owner is not realizing what he or she perceives to be a MUCH larger benefit than the rank and file. It's the way of life here in our neck of the woods. It may be premature to assume this is going to happen, it's just that for us the impact would be so widespread and devastating to our practice it's hard not to react passionately! I'll be done now......... (edited for spelling)

Bird - I do see what you are saying, but we are in the REALLY small plan market and I can say with certainty that the majority (if not all) of our small plan sponsors would eliminate the plan entirely if not for the availability of cross-testing to maximize the owners. A qualified plan would no longer be worth it for them. It would probably put us out of business as well (in our market). Gone are the days when the Employer worried about it's employees' retirement future.....

thank you Sheila. That was my feeling as well, but then when the question came up I began to wonder myself. Why is it that the pension field lends itself to this constant overthinking on my part?!?!?

Pretty simple question on the 1099-R for a QDRO payout to the Alt. Payee (who was the spouse). [she took the cash which I know is IRS Code "2" because the 10% doesn't apply, just ordinary income tax.] My question relates to the 1099-R form item box "total distribution". Do I mark this box because this is the total distribution for the Alternate Payee of her portion of the Participant's balance or is the box left blank? thanks in advance & hope everyone has a good Turkey Day!!

was that usually his first and last invite?!?!

Ok - plan ADP failed in 2007. Refund was done correctly prior to 03/15/2008. Participant reported refund on 2007 individual return as was policy then. January of 2009 a 1099-R was not completed for the refund as it should have been (with a code "P" for taxable in 2007). Should a 1099-R be done this coming January (2010) and the code "D" (refund taxable in 2007) be completed so that the actual records coincide with the participant's '07 return and the plan records? Does this raise any flags?

Thanks WDIK - I learned a new word today...always thought English was a strong point for me but...for those who were wondering as I was; I found this: Tautology (rhetoric), repetition of meaning, using dissimilar words to say the same thing twice, especially where the additional words fail to provide additional clarity and meaning.

I had to leave the conference on Tuesday evening, so unfortunately I missed your session. I did, however, get to hear Mr. Watson with a brief tune in his session! Always enjoyable!

there is another thread on this but I'm challenged when it comes to linking it here.... FWIW - we are going to combine into one notice. We have a lot of plans with both pretax and roth and it would be a nightmare trying to determine who gets which notice...easier to send one.

Fredman - I like the rehire tracking much better. I have a few large clients that are notorius for rehires. My big issue with "category" or "status" was that I wanted ALL terminated employees (whether participants or not) to show as terminated on the status pages. I had an old report that did that for me on prior versions. But when I updated, as you mentioned, I only had the option of active, inactive or ineligible on the standard reports. I made some adjustments to my report and now have the results I wanted. Thanks for the input!

as always, thank you for your help Tom! I have the report just about where I want it now, just one more question...my "ineligible - age" and "ineligible - service" employees are fine and accurate, however if I have a person who is in these categories who terminated, the report isn't showing them as termed but as IE - age or IE service. They do have term dates in the file and on the report. Is this a matter of my going in and changing the "plan status" for the employee manually from IE to termed?

Ahhh...to my Crystal friends out there...I know I'm behind but recently upgrade to ver 12. [What a nightmare on the dates issue, but that's another story....] I used a lot of the old "FDP" reports especially for status pages as we always liked that setup. With the new codes (status/category, what have you) the employees on my status pages are basically Active, Ineligible or Inactive; including the terminees. I'd like to have at least the terminees showing as "terminated" on the Status pages (and not "inactive - employement status). Any ideas? I tried editing an old formula with an "if, then" type deal so that if the employee was terminated they would show as such. I get no errors when I check the formula in Crystal. But then when I run the report in Relius (and it does run ok), that space on the report is simply blank no "category" for anyone.