RatherBeGolfing

Its because secure file transfer and restricted file access are not the same thing. At a VERY basic level, when you send data over the internet without a secure connection, it is like passing an open letter hand to hand until it gets to the end recipient. Someone could access that letter at any point until it reaches the end recipient. A secure file transfer uses algorithms to scramble what is in the letter, so that the data is useless even if accessed before it reaches the end recipient. It doesn't restrict who can access it at its end point, but it is secure from point A to point B.

Paging @Larry Starr for his rundown on why real estate inside a qualified plan is not a wise choice, even when legally doable....

Was there an arms length negotiation for this offer or did owner unilaterally decide to offer this "option"?

Ditto!

I'll be there Austin. I got a later flight than usual on Wednesday so I'll actually get to stay for the entire last session

I left out an important word in my prior post. AP is not the ONLY* party with rights that should be protected.

I would give notice to all parties that a DRO has been received and will be reviewed to determine qualified status. 100% agree. This is fairly easily distinguishable from simply knowing that P is going through a divorce, and that QDRO may or may not be issued at its conclusion. AP is not the ONLY* party with rights that should be protected. *Edited for clarity. I somehow left out the only in my last sentence. Of course AP also has rights that need protecting.

None. It has made it easier because we can tell people there is no gray area here, we need X to do Y.

I agree with @QDROphile on this one, I prefer simple and clearly defined over discretion, especially when the practitioner may not be the best suited to exercise that discretion. Suspension of Participant distributions or loans. If the Administrator is on notice (verbal or written) regarding a pending domestic relations action (e.g., a divorce) and has a reasonable belief the Participant's account may become subject to a QDRO, the Administrator may suspend processing the Participant's distribution or loan requests pending resolution. What is notice? Phone call from the ex? water cooler gossip? Participant complaining in the lunchroom that s/he was served with divorce papers? What is reasonable belief that participants account may become subject to a QDRO? You could probably say its reasonable to believe that an account may become subject to a QDRO in all divorces, because you just don't know. What if the participant says its amicable and they will just leave with what is "theirs"? is it still reasonable to expect a QDRO? When do you pull the trigger for the "may suspend" part? When do you decide not to suspend? When is it no longer "pending resolution"? Does a plan fiduciary have to review and "approve" of a property settlement to know that resolution is no longer pending? Why not something that is clearly defined? When you get X you do Y, otherwise Z! Just my opinion of course, we all have our preferences.

Im pretty sure citizenship is not required if there is legal residency, green card for example.

@Bill Presson Bill is it too late to get this question in for the "ask the experts" panel at ASPPA Annual? I wonder what kind of discussion we could get with a whole panel of "pension celebrities"...

This is one of the more important takeaways from this thread. Stay within the terms of your engagement, period.

Technically the "regular" 5500 is late so its DFVCP, but you would at least have an argument that you filed an EZ beleiving it was a correct form. You would not have that argument if you relied on the $250k filing exemption. For the EZ i think its $500 per late filing, and I had people "forget" that its combined value of plans, not each plan. I have also seen where some thought the assets were less than they were, etc. No such issues if you take 5 minutes to fill out the form and mail it to the IRS, at least then you can amend if you make a mistake on the numbers.

Never. But I have seen plenty of cases where someone thinks they are exempt so they don't file, only to find out they did not qualify for the exemption and now have to pay to file as a late filer. If you have a TPA for calculations or whatever, it doesn't make sense to me to not file a Form 5500. I could understand someone not wanting to engage a provider just for the 5500, but if they are already servicing the plan in some capacity...

Fair enough, I just wanted to clarify what I said in case it came off as rude or dismissive. Good Luck

We also file 5500s regardless of assets, and we make that clear to the client from day one.

I never said stupid, ignorant, or bad admins. I simply stated that this situation has identified an area that you may not be fully equipped to handle and that you should use this to make improvements. If you only get a handful of QDRO situations each year, maybe it makes more sense for you to outsource the review process instead of filling that knowledge gap in house. That is not a put down at all, it is just reality and we all have to do it (big and small shops).

Oh I would too, no worries. Beyond that, I also think a review of your internal procedures would be prudent. I won't be as scathing as @QDROphile, but I think this case has illustrated that you may have a knowledge gap that should be filled, or certain situations should be turned over to someone else.

If the document/QDRO procedures require receipt of a QDRO, the HR departments actions here does not matter Not if you followed procedure. Ex spouse should have acted to protect her entitlement. Her legal issues are with participant.

That is 100% the intent of the person who drafted the document / QDRO procedure. There is nothing in the law that allows you withhold funds from a participant with a distributable because you know or suspect or have heard rumors of a DRO maybe being drafted. Language like yours is clear cut. If you have a DRO you hold the assets until you determine if you have a QDRO. If you dont have one, you pay the participant. Unless your document tells you otherwise, you don't have one. In fact, you would be withholding a distribution to a participant with a valid claim for the benefits.

Lots of prep and empty shelves in the stores. Lots of rain and and trees bending in the wind. That was the week before the storm... As soon as the turn happened after the Bahamas everything goes went back to normal. It is a pretty unique experience, we prep and stalk the storm trackers like it is the end of days until it makes the turn, and then it is like nothing happened. Happy to hear you stayed dry on the east coast Tom

Could both arguments be correct here? 1. There is nothing specifically prohibiting transferring of the loan asset between sources as it is an investment. The balance of each source is the same after the transfer. 2. you cannot "vest" unvested assets by moving them from one source to another, just like you cannot remove distribution restrictions by moving them to another source. So, if you were to rebalance, there is no failure until the assets that moved does something they cannot do, like a distribution before age 59 1/2 or distributing unvested assets. There are other examples of things things that are permissible when viewed only on its own, but a failure when all facts and circumstances are considered. For example, you could terminate a plan and distribute all assets, you could also start a new plan. Each action viewed by only on its own is permissible, but when considered together the distribution is a failure if there is no other distributable event. If you move 401(k) assets to profit sharing through Austin's loan rebalance argument, are there any problems if the loan is fully repaid (ignoring interest credited to the source)?

Stay safe Tom. We are in Tampa so most models have it slowing down before it hits us but my physician clients in Ocala/Gainesville are on high alert since they have several surgery centers. Disaster preparedness folks over there are projecting worst in 35 years for that area.

I had a feeling this one could get bad and stocked up on water and supplies last weekend, which was good because the line was snaking around Sam's Club at 7am this morning... I hope you all stay safe and dry!

Nope I think you have it just right. A similar question was asked at ASPPA Annual a few years ago while we still had the IRS Q&A, and they agreed it would be plan comp for the next year even though the participant had no hours worked in that year.