RatherBeGolfing

You are trying to take advantage of the class exemption, which lets you allocate the excise tax to the participants rather than pay the IRS under certain circumstances. vfcp-class-exemption-faqs.pdf The class exemption is limited, so its possible that the SF EBSA office has determined that you don't qualify for the class exemption. You can only take advantage of the class exemption for one transaction once every three years. Have you already used the exemption in the last three years? Does your application contain more than one transaction? Either of these could mean that you are not eligible, in which case the EBSA is correct, and you need to file the 5330 and pay the tax. Could that be your issue here?

ESOP guy is correct.

You correct by issuing the 1099-R. No, its not ok to just let it go.

I am not criticizing your business model, but I am genuinely curious. How do you justify a distribution fee of $125 when the participant in fact gets no distribution. Even if the balance was large enough for the participant to get something, let's say an account balance of $199. At that balance you don't have to give them a rollover option or withhold, you just cash them out and you are done.

Good question...

I agree, de minimus is not a valid reason for forfeiture. The IRS allows for forfeiture with reinstatement for missing participants (Treas. Reg. 1.411(a)-4(b)(6)) The DOL does not expressly allow for forfeiture with reinstatement for missing participants, and may consider it a prohibited transaction.

In this context, you could probably include the "delayed" deferrals in your correction of late deferrals since you are already making corrections. This doesn't sit right with me. It may be practical for the RK, but not for the most plans and participants. A short delay from the ER could cause a long delay before it gets to the participant because of timing with the RKs "practical" procedures.

Since it is not late deferral, what eligible VFCP transaction would you submit it under? Looking into WHY the RK did what it did, and if it will continue to do it that way (and if that is a potential recurring problem) is probably the more pressing issue.

Absolutely. From your facts, the assets were segregated from the ER assets timely, so there are no late deferrals. It also sounds like a short administrative delay before the assets made it to the participant accounts. It is a matter of a few days correct? I don't see this as a fiduciary breach either.

Possible consequence could be losing the ability to take a future loan assuming the defaulted loan doesnt max out the limits. But other than that, no.

They know their document very well. That election is an hours requirement, not elapsed time. There is another election that specifies months and elapsed time, in which case the ee would only need 1 hour in the first and last month to count all the months. The failsafe for your election is 1000 hours. An ee who worked more than 1000 hours in a 12 month computation period but failed to work at least 1 hour per month for 6 consecutive months would still satisfy eligibility.

Using safe harbor definition? No. Costs related to the purchase of a primary residence and costs to prevent eviction/foreclosure are different hardships. For the latter, you are 100% correct to require that the participant prove foreclosure/eviction.

Let's start with the obvious, what does the QDRO say?

Good point. I do think the two go hand in hand though. Can you make a reasonable conclusion (as it pertains to our QDRO discussion) without satisfying ERISAs fiduciary standards? I can't come up with an example where when one is met and the other is not.

Would you say that the fiduciary standard is higher than @QDROphile's "reasonable conclusion" standard?

With very few exceptions, hardcopy.

You can make it one step shorter by not clicking on your name and just going to the top of the page and click the drop down with your name, etc. Not sure its any easier or faster though

Yea I dont see a practical reason either, but I have seen people do some weird things for weird reasons.

I would also decline. While we rarely have to take measures to enforce our SA, I would have some doubts about a client who does not want to sign one at all.

Maybe the benefitslinker IS the manager ?

I agree

Sure, if we change the facts from post death QDRO being the issue (its not) to a post-distribution QDRO, the issue is moot. Ex-spouse would have standing if the plan ignored a valid and timely QDRO, like a QDRO filed before assets were distributed. Ex-spouse would absolutely have an equitable claim against surviving spouse for assets that the court already ruled belongs to ex-spouse.

Without a QDRO? They have none, unless they have one of those funky QDRO procedures that kicks in when they are put on notice, but Im pretty sure OP said they require the actual QDRO. My point was simply that the death of the participant does not invalidate a subsequent QDRO, which had previously been called into question in this thread.

I don't think we were given the facts that this happened "long ago", just that the divorce was a couple of years back and that the plan did not receive a QDRO at the time. Either way, the death of a participant would not make a subsequent order fail to be qualified. The facts are slightly different but the end result is the same

If it was one of my plans, we would have given the participant the RMD information even if they wanted to do a total lumpsum distribution. We would also do the calculation for them if they asked down the road. We have the data, the knowledge, and the software to do it. It would just be bad customer service to tell a former participant that they are on their own simply because they decided on a 100% distribution a few months ago. I don't see a reason why the participant couldn't choose at that point. It is no longer a plan issue, it is a taxpayer and possibly IRA issue if RMD assets are improperly rolled into the IRA...