justanotheradmin

yes, if Owner is the only HCE and the rank and file are NHCE, that fails 414(s). HCE has 100% of compensation included, NHCE only have 83.3%. That spread is too far apart.

he has catch-up due to being over the 415 limit, not the 402g. I don't think the amount above 18,800 is actually deductible though if there is no income to apply it against, but will leave that question to people who actually prepare tax returns for sole props.

Is there a basic plan document? I have seen some that address SH accruals when 414(s) does not pass. It defaults to a 415 definition of compensation as a fall back.

sounds like the DRO was forwarded to Ascensus for processing before the plan sent the letter to the alternate payee. Maybe they didn't want to sit on it or though Ascensus would take some time getting the information out. Its perhaps like giving someone who is leaving a job a distribution form for their 401(k) account before they leave, even though they can't take the money out until after their last day. If Person B took out the money from Ascensus before all the other things occurred, that might be an issue. and doing things out of order isn't ideal. but in this case, sounds like Person B hasn't actually filled out any Ascensus forms or moved the money out. Ascensus probably didn't look at the QDRO. The employer probably just filled out a form saying there is one, here's the benefit formula, here's the Alternate Payees information etc. They are going to take direction from the Plan Administrator( in this case sounds like the employer) If a step gets missed - the main corrective action is generally to then do that step. and improve plan procedures so the error doesn't happen again. So if the Alt payee wasn't notified BEFORE ascensus, well, they were notified after. Failure to follow the terms of the plan is a common error, but unless person B was harmed, such as not getting the full benefit awarded by the QDRO, I'm not sure what else you want the plan to do. Forwarding the forms - that can be standard procedure depending on the particular service arrangement with the financial institution.

Why would there be? DRO gets written, submitted to the court, then someone forwards to the plan, plan determines if it is actually qualified or not (just having the word qualified on it doesn't make it qualified), If it is qualified - plan sends the alternate payee information about what they can do with their money that is in the plan. Which sounds like occurred when Ascensus sent the distribution forms. Nothing gets sent to the court again for QDROs. If there are issues about dates and representation - such as a posted dated item being filed with the court - that is something to take up with the court. As @QDROphile mentions, the things that you seem to take contention with, are not things the plan can resolve. A and B and their counsel need to work it out.

Person B's input isn't required, in fact some divorce agreements will specifically make drafting and filing a DRO the responsibility of a particular party so that the other party doesn't have to deal with it. The plan literally CANNOT make a DRO qualified until AFTER its been filed with the court. So either these are wrong, or out of order. Person B's signature is not required keep track in writing or every written request and response for the information. This is something to hope EBSA can help with. I don't know what this means. Are they asking Person B to sign something? asking them to take money out of the plan? There isn't anything for an alternate payee to accept or reject. If they think the DRO was written wrong that is typically something for them and their lawyer to work out with the other person's lawyer. Not the plan. I don't think this means what you think it means. for a DRO to be qualified - it literally just means that it has the appropriate information mandated by federal law, such as being able to identify the people involved, the plan involved, that the award isn't in a form that the plan doesn't allow etc. Qualified doesn't mean the order has a money split that is the same as what the parties agreed upon.

I think you might be conflating "legally qualified" and "aligns with an equitable agreed upon division of marital property" . they are Not the same. Legally qualified for a DRO - is just a checklist based on the rules in Federal Law. Has almost nothing to do with the amount, value, formula of the benefit awarded written into a DRO for the alternate payee. Q: Does person B have a copy of the DRO? It not, perhaps they can get one from the court records. If yes - Q: is the Plan Administrator saying the DRO is Qualified? Was that communicated in writing from the Plan Administrator to person B? The DRO is not a QDRO until the plan says it is. And then the plan is required to provide person B with all the things - the QDRO procedures, the acceptance of the plan that it is qualified, information about segregation of the money into a separate account, or distribution options, etc. If the plan administrator is not providing those things, then person B can ask EBSA to help. If the plan administrator is refusing the say if the DRO is qualified or not - and person B wants it to be qualified - then person B needs to submit the DRO to the plan and ask them to deny it or qualify it. In writing. Q: Does Person B believe the benefit awarded in the DRO is NOT what was agreed to in the property settlement agreement? If they think the DRO is drafted wrong, and doesn't align with the agreed upon split of marital assets - then it is something for a family law attorney to work on. The Plan Administrator has no say in the formula or benefit award in a DRO, qualified or not. Person B should take a copy of the DRO and a copy of their marital property agreement to a family law attorney and ask them to see if the two align. If the issue is the Marital Property agreement should be amended - then that has nothing to do with the plan either.

can they not log in to a custodian or plan website and see balances?

that depends. by current participants do you mean people with balances? actives with balance? terminated people with balances? actives who are eligible but do not have a balance? if the MEP is relying on the individual employers to send them a census each year, they might not know who the current participant are, just who has balances and who was current as of the most recent year end. If the MEP is also the recordkeeper/custodian/and 3(16) provider it will vary.

100% this something that an experienced ERISA law firm should handle. This is NOT the type of VCP to cut your teeth on, even if you as a TPA want to start offering VCP services and have staff with the proper enrollment (CPA, ERPA, ETC) to do so.

All of that needs to be sorted with a family law/ divorce lawyer first. If the divorce lawyer needs help from an ERISA attorney should know that they don't know enough and suggest additional counsel. Once an agreed upon DRO is written - that conforms to whatever the property agreement (original or updated etc) has in it - if there are issues getting the money out of the account for Person B - THEN the plan gets involved. Is the split in the property settlement agreement appropriate given all the new information? - not a question for these boards or the plan Does the DRO reflect the 401(k) award amount/value in the property settlement agreement ? - not a question for these boards or the plan, get an attorney or accountant who specialize in that to review Is the DRO accepted as qualified by the Plan? - that's a question for the Plan Administrator. If Person B doesn't like the answer, or isn't getting a response, they need to request a copy of the QDRO policy If person B wants to contact EBSA - they certainly could. None of the background information matters to EBSA. They would need to tell EBSA the date they presented the DRO to the plan, or the date the plan was notified there might be a QDRO, the date they requested a copy of the plan's QDRO policy in writing, and then any communication they received from the plan in response either saying no, we aren't giving you a copy, or you aren't entitled to it etc. If a participant/beneficiary is entitled to a plan disclosure, document, SPD etc, and they requested it and haven't received it, then I've seen good success when EBSA contacts the sponsor / plan admin to get it. and then EBSA forwards it on to that person. The QDRO procedure isn't going to tell person B if the stuff in the DRO is correct in regards to the dates, values, etc. Its going to say what the plan will do, notices, etc if a DRO is presented for the plan to accept as qualified or deny it as not. If the property settlement awarded half the 401(k) to person B, as of that date, then the DRO might be fine. Sounds like Person B might have wanted marital assets split differently if they knew the full picture, include a different portion of the 401(k). All that needs to be ironed out first.

you haven't said what the actual issue is - has Person B received money and they disagree with the amount? They don't like how the DRO was drafted? Are you saying the DRO was never signed or reviewed by Person B or their legal representative? If they have a copy of the DRO - and it is doesn't agree with their property settlement agreement - that needs to be addressed. The plan doesn't get involved with that, and the plan's QDRO procedures don't matter for that part. Bottom line - if there is an issue with the language in the DRO - specifically the asset value award - that probably has nothing to do with the plan's QDRO policy. You haven't said where the money is held either. If it is someplace like American Funds, or Hancock, etc when the distribution / segregation of accounts form is submitted they will often do the calculation for the plan administrator. You ask what legal action can be taken - What issue is it that Person B would want a remedy that the PLAN has anything to do with? Failure to receive a copy of the QDRO procedure? Failure of the Plan Administrator to correctly apply the asset valuation / award that was specified in the DRO? - then that's a math problem. See my earlier reply for suggested steps. If the issue is the DRO has the wrong amount(date) in the order, that's not a Plan problem, that's something they need to take up with whoever is helping them with the assets in the divorce. Either what you are wanting help on - has nothing to do with the plan - and is out of scope of these message boards - or, you haven't given the information needed to make it clear to the folks reading that there is an issue with the plan.

When a DRO is signed - and the asset valuation date (via date or otherwise) are two different things. The DRO might say the alternate payee gets 65% of the vested benefit as of November 17, 2019, with adjustments for earnings thereafter, but the actual DRO might be signed and recorded with the court years later. And the actual split of the money might be well after that. TL:DR Present the DRO - ask for copies of the QDRO policy and ETA on decision - get decision - get forms to get money out. Person B can perhaps start by giving a copy of the DRO that was filed with the court to the Plan Administrator (this person, can be an entity, business is usually listed in the SPD). If it is the EMPLOYER it is helpful if it is going to someone whose responsibilities include the retirement plan. Person B might want to include a cover letter with the DRO - asking for a copy of the plan's QDRO procedures/policy, and confirmation that the DRO has been received by the Plan Administrator and that it will be reviewed. Ask for an ETA on when the DRO will be accepted as Qualified, or rejected. And include where the written acceptance or rejection should be sent to notify the alternate payee. Keep notes - and dates - and copies of correspondence. When the ETA passes - and no Acceptance or Rejection is received in writing - ask for an update, in writing. If DRO is accepted as Qualified - the Plan Administrator(or perhaps a recordkeeper) calculates how much the current account belongs to the alternate payee, and the segregates or tracks it separately. Then the alternate payee asks for a distribution form, and can do whatever the plan allows with the money, often rolling it out into their own IRA. If the alternate payee disagrees with the amount that was segregated - then they can ask for supporting documentation, such as statements or what formula was used to arrive at the split amount. How much detail they receive will vary a lot based on a variety of factors. You do not mention where the plan's money is held. None of this is legal advice. Just a simplification of what to actually focus if someone wants to get the plan to review a DRO.

I agree with C.B. Zeller. Is the issue the file type? Because ASC takes .txt files for import just fine. Is the issue how the data is in the file? What import function in ASC are you trying to use? there are a variety of ways to import things into ASC. For example, investment imports where ASC has pre-programmed to work with certain major recordkeeper files. And then there are ASCRIPT custom imports which are super easy to use as well once you know what you are doing. Plus wizards and such. If the issue is how the data is in the file, and you don't want to manually edit the file then a macro or code to do that as CB suggests. You can just open the txt file in Excel, and then save it as an excel file type if you really just want to change the file type.

I think the auditors are probably right. you need to look at the formula of the match - if it is on an annual basis - and everyone is to receive a uniform percentage of pay based on deferrals - which is typical - why would someone who enters 4/1 or later be excluded? discretionary does not mean it can start stop any time - it usually means they can choose to give it one year or not. If they give it for that plan year, it needs to follow the formula in the document. Which sounds like is based on annual compensation and annual deferrals. If you let us know specifically what the document says for the annual based match formula maybe people can give more insight. If the sponsor wanted the ability to contribute match for some paydates and not others, the formula for the match needed to specify a payroll period or paydate basis. Not Annual.