RatherBeGolfing

Obviously you need to do what you feel is right. But before you do that, take a step back and consider your sources / understanding of what is going on. I would not want to make a career decision based on information I found in a blog, it is just not good practice. As for what an ERISA attorney thinks, understand that just because something is alleged, that does not make it a fact. What "side" is this ERISA attorney on? Is s/he truly neutral? is s/he counsel for the plaintiff? Counsel for the defendant? You also looked at some "similar lawsuits". Do you have the training and experience to pick apart case law? The vast majority of practitioners in our field do not. I'm not telling you to not "blow the whistle". Im just saying you need to make sure you are right and that you understand the consequences of doing so.

http://www.asppa.org/Portals/2/PDFs/GAC/ASAPs/07-09.pdf

I think it is ASPPA asap 07-09, but still brilliantly written

That is pretty bad reason for denying it. I could defiantly see them argue that just because it actually takes you 8 days doesn't mean that 8 days is reasonable. In other words, if your process causes undue delay, change the process. But to say that 8 days is unreasonable because you never approve anything beyond 7 days is just lazy

I use the pay date as the loss date. It really is the only thing that makes sense IMHO. Every auditor (large plan audits) I have ever dealt with has used pay date.

Hancock is one of the easiest to work with for sure, and they wont nickel and dime you to death like some other platforms. They have some quirks in the system but so do all the others.

There are so many circumstances that factor in that three weeks could very well be reasonable. Without knowing all the facts, we just cant tell. The Plan Admin may not look at and sign off on the form the same day it comes in. It may come in on a Thursday and not be signed until Monday. The the TPA needs to sign off on vesting etc, then off to JH for processing. Since we know this wasnt a direct deposit, we can easily add another 5 days or so for the pony express. It adds up.

I agree with Bird. It is not going to be in the SPD, it is simply an administrative procedure. John Hancock did it this way because of how the plan is setup in their system. I have run into this issue a couple of times when doing rollovers to plans on the Fidelity platform. Fidelity wants the rollover check made out to them but sent to the participant. Unless you mess around with the JH settings, JH will send the check to the employer rather than the participant.

Bingo.

While I'm sure it wasn't the answer you wanted, your ex really isn't getting more than if the amount was transferred on the day the decree was signed since he/she is only getting earnings on that amount.

The anguish should be minimal if done correctly. Lets say that the EE (not catch-up eligible) deferred $20,000 in 2017, resulting in excess deferrals of $2,000. The W-2 should reflect $20,000 deferrals but only reduce income by $18,000. No 1099-R is needed to let the participant know to include it in income since the W-2 (should have) already included the $2,000 excess in as income in 2017. In 2018, the plan distributes the $2,000 excess plus earnings on the excess, lets use $200 for earnings. The plan issues two 1099-Rs for 2018 1099-R for $2,000 with code P (taxable in the deferral year) 1099-R for $200 with code 8 (taxable in current/distribution year) The W-2 signaled to the IRS that there was an excess of $2,000 and the 1099-R for $2,000 with code P has now signaled that the excess was distributed.

2007 or 2017?

I haven't looked at this one yet, but this mornings NAPA NET did point out some issues with the Small Business Employees Retirement Enhancement Act (S. 3219) and the Automatic Retirement Plan Act of 2017 (H.R. 4523).

One argument is that the deferrals can be distributed after the April 15 deadline if the excess deferrals would cause the plan to violate 401(a)(30).

This 100%. I had to argue with a DOL "investigator" in response to a participant complaint last year. She was troubled by the fact that the participant was not afforded an opportunity to direct her 401(k) contributions... In a trustee directed plan. Yea that was an interesting conversation

Yep, "fair" is just another four-letter word...

Ok that makes sense. Good reminder to proof read your work before submitting it to the government I do like the tone of this letter better than the late deferral ones that caused a stir a while back. Its always interesting to see what comes out of Philly...

This is for a transgression other than late deferrals right?

Sure, it is possible that QDRO procedures could segregate and administratively hold the assets without a court issued DRO, but not for 15 years. [ERISA §§ 206(d)(3)(H)] (H)(i) During any period in which the issue of whether a domestic relations order is a qualified domestic relations order is being determined (by the plan administrator, by a court of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise), the plan administrator shall separately account for the amounts (hereinafter in this subparagraph referred to as the ‘‘segregated amounts’’) which would have been payable to the alternate payee during such period if the order had been determined to be a qualified domestic relations order. (ii) If within the 18-month period described in clause (v) the order (or modification thereof) is determined to be a qualified domestic relations order, the plan administrator shall pay the segregated amounts (including any interest thereon) to the person or persons entitled thereto. (iii) If within the 18-month period described in clause (v)— (I) it is determined that the order is not a qualified domestic relations order, or (II) the issue as to whether such order is a qualified domestic relations order is not resolved, then the plan administrator shall pay the segregated amounts (including any interest thereon) to the person or persons who would have been entitled to such amounts if there had been no order. (iv) Any determination that an order is a qualified domestic relations order which is made after the close of the 18-month period described in clause (v) shall be applied prospectively only. (v) For purposes of this subparagraph, the 18-month period described in this clause is the 18-month period beginning with the date on which the first payment would be required to be made under the domestic relations order.

This isn't adding up for me. If the plan designated OP as the AP 15 years ago and continues separate accounting of the assets now, they must have already received an order. Surely this was not a unilateral decision...

I agree that this would make sense, but what if the participant is both missing and does not have a SSN? The program addresses missing or unresponsive participants, but you still have to identify the participant. If the participant is not cooperating, and you do not have a valid SSN or TIN, what do you do?

Good point.

I have read about this before but never looked at all the detail. The way I understood it at the time, it was a employer contribution made to the plan conditioned upon student loan payments, but regardless of whether the participant makes 401(k) contributions. I think it was a PWC product aimed at larger corporations. I have also seen a different approach, but again I havent really looked at the details. This approach would be that the participant with student loan debt defers comp to the plan, and in turn, the company makes a payment directly to the student loan company. Lets say the company agrees to pay off up to $1,200 per year of student loan debt if the employee defers at least $1,200. So the employee defers $100 per month, and the company makes $100 a month in loan payments. The loan payments would be taxable income to the participant, but the participant is also building a balance in the account.

If you are looking for topics that YOU started or participated in, click on your name in top right corner, click on profile, then "see my activity". This will show you all of the posts you created or participated in.

No, its more along the lines of an unnecessary expense to the plan. They either have to have certain balance in the account that could be invested elsewhere, or they have to pay monthly fees for an account that might not be used for several years.