Mike Preston

Got it.

BG, did you mix up 2 and 3?

The thing that jumps out at me is that the participant retaining your services has a divorce consultant and you, but no counsel while the alternate payee has counsel. That needs to be addressed.

draper1, "weigh in" is remarkably uninforming. The other responses all seem to assume you are advising the Plan in some respect. Is that the case? Or are you being asked by the participant's counsel to provide an opinion? Or, are you being asked by a neutral party such as a judge or arbitrator? It matters. You mention the standards so I assume you are an actuary. If you review them in detail you will find that in order to be qualified to practice in this area as an advisor one must be familiar with jurisdictional law. Your lawyers can argue until they are blue in the face about whether something is earned over this period or that, but if your state law is clear on the issue you are bound by the standards to both know and to communicate what you know. In California, for example, the landmark case is in re: Brown. Brown and its successors make it clear that a defined benefit's "benefit" is attributable to a participant's entire work history and no discrete period of employment is given greater weight than another. Unless an attorney is intending to make law by arguing that established legal precedent should not be applied they are usually asking somebody to "weigh in" by applying existing precedent.

$25k owed to plan f/b/o wife from husband's IRA plus adjustment for earnings. Pay it. Good luck getting IRA custodian to issue proper 1099 indicating return of excess (not taxable). Then process distribution to wife properly. Show 50k distribution and 25k other expense (label it theft if it gets their attention) with 25k receivable. Final 5500 is now for 2016, not 2015.

Something is fishy. How did she know her net income in time to make a $9k contribution *IN* 2015?

1. No. 2. Correct amount due to husband. 3. Shouldn't. 4. Badly.

It seems to me that there are two issues being confused. I agree that true segregation requires a QDRO. But a hold only requires a QDRO procedure authorizing same. I thought there was case law on the issue. A very hazy memory tells me it was a Unisys case. Could be wrong.

Bill means 12/31/2015.

Yes.

If it is an S-corp then a 5500-SF was required for 2014. Hie thee to DFVCP.

No.

Wouldn't the participant have had to exhaust all loan possibilities from the plan (or any other plan of the employer) before even considering a hardship distribution?

Agreed.

You need to hire an administrator for your plan. That firm will help you out.

Sad or not, I don't think it satisfies the safe-harbor definition. If things are as they say, it should be a simple matter to have a QDRO prepared that accomplishes what they want.

Prove no participants at BOY.

Partnership or S/C-Corp?

I would hope that industry groups like ASPPA will ensure that the governmental forms which request the identification of the Trust's EIN will do so only when it makes sense to do so. In the case where all tax reporting is through a third party, rendering it unneeded for a separate Trust EIN, I would hope leaving that information blank or filling it in with N/A would be allowed.

Precisely 0.000% of my plans have separately applied for EIN's. Plan Sponsors have EIN's. Trusts have EIN's. But none of the plans themselves have EIN's. Is the OP referring to "plans" when he intends "trusts" or is there a soon to be required "Plan EIN"?

You also need to determine if any of the stock is excluded. It would not be uncommon to see something like a preference clause that runs in favor of Owner 1 and against (that is, non-reciprocal) Owner 3. If that is the case, then it is a controlled group. Sometimes this information is very difficult to sus out. I had one case a while back where I was hired by corporate counsel to determine whether a controlled group existed. Even though I was hired by corporate counsel I couldn't get him to let me see a copy of the by-laws as he said he had an arrangement with his client that precluded him sharing a copy. I had to settle for him reading the relevant parts to me over the phone. We finally came to the conclusion that Owner 1 had a right of first refusal that was not reciprocal with respect to owner 2. Yup, controlled group. I couldn't certify the results since I wasn't in possession of the by-laws so I issued a caveated report and the lawyer ended up sending a "certifying" letter to the auditors (since they wouldn't accept mine). Moral of the story: CYA

Isn't the $1,000 limit changeable? If so, it stands to reason that no 411(d)(6) rights attach to the timing.

Sigh. Yes, there is.

Opt-outs CAN be irrevocable, but they don't have to be. Which way has testing implications.

Nope.