RatherBeGolfing

We didn't get any darkness here in Tampa but the temperature drop was noticeable, which was pretty neat. Only 7 years to go for the next one, I think I'm going to stock up on solar eclipse glasses around 2020...

We will only get the partial down here in Florida, but my daughters school decided that today would be a good day for early release so that kids could enjoy the eclipse. She has been geeking out and researching all weekend. As a side note, I wonder if the DOL would object to investing pension assets in solar eclipse glasses... I saw them selling at $400 for a 10 pack on amazon last week which would be one hell of a rate of return for some flimsy cardboard glasses

I agree, employee would have the 6 required months on the rehire date because of service spanning rules, and the next entry date is 7/1/16.

or Turbotax et al...

The self help websites and software haven't exactly gone without controversy. Legalzoom has been challenged in several jurisdictions. As I understand it, the difference between Austin and a self help site is Austin would use a degree of judgment and discretion, whereas the self help sites do not. Giants like legalzoom have been able to defend themselves against the state bars, and in some cases I believe the reached rather large settlements, which would be hard to do for Austin, even though he is an international man of mystery...

100% agree. Pooled plans work great in the micro market. I do them all the time.

By that logic, you could use someone else's loan note as proof because the law doesn't specifically say it has to be YOUR loan note.

Yes, the law is inconvenient at times

I guess you could be a directed trustee but take an action that would be a fiduciary action (See OPs earlier question on education vs advice). But to rely on BICE, I think you would have to accept that you are a fiduciary but fulfill the requirements of the BICE and be exempt, I don't think it can function as a backstop while claiming that you are not a fiduciary...

Just curious, does the plan actually say deposited on a payroll basis, or allocated on a payroll basis?

There is nothing philosophical about 72(p). If you approve a a loan in excess of the costs that can qualify for a principal residency loan, you are 100% guaranteed to violate 72(p). No time machine needed.

Belgarath points to the same concern I have here. If the loan terms exceed 5 years and it does not qualify as a principal residence loan, you fail to satisfy IRC §72(p)and the consequence is a deemed distribution or VCP to correct. Whether the loan qualifies as a principal residence loan is not a needs tests like in a hardship situation, it is a best practices issue to make sure that you do not issue loans in violation of IRC §72(p) that could be detrimental to the plan and participant.

Ok so in your opinion the actual costs incident to the acquisition of a principal residence are irrelevant?

Sure, but your headaches still make for interesting discussion starters for the rest of us

So you approve loans amortized over more than 5 years based on what?

I have heard tales of ink testing and carbon dating paper to catch back dating, but I don't know how much truth there is to that. I had a conversation with someone at a conference once who jokingly said that it might be a good idea to save and label paper each year so that you would have the correct paper for the whatever document you may need in the future...

I don't disagree with anything in your post. My comment was simply addressing the point that if the "last known" on file is the same as the participant, a different address in the QDRO is most likely a more recent address. I have also seen the address on the QDRO be wrong for various reasons. As QDROphile pointed out, the statute requires certain things to be in the QDRO, one of them being the APs address . The statute also requires that the PA notifies the AP of the receipt of the DRO, its procedure for determining qualified states, and to notify the AP when the determination is done. The statute does NOT require that the notification be made to to the address in the QDRO, but this is where the requirement for a plan to establish reasonable procedures to determine qualified status and administer distributions come into play. Does the plan have a procedure for where to send the notice? Does it have a procedure for a case where the address on file is different from the one in the QDRO? Does it sound reasonable for the PA to simply send it to an address different than the one in the QDRO with no verification that it is the correct address? I think you need a pretty good reason to use an address other than the address in the QDRO, maybe something like written verification? Based on the few facts we have, it seems pretty clear that the PA made a mistake. What is not clear is whether that mistake caused a loss to the AP or whether there is liability attached.

But if you have one address on file for the AP (possibly same as participant) and you get a new address in the QDRO, wouldn't the QDRO address be the "last known address" since it is newer than the address previously on file?

where there's a will there's a way...

Ha, but since they are not my cows they are not my problem :)

I am now a little sad because I don't get random cow messages...

What Bill said... What I am seeing in practice is 2-3 prior years depending on the auditor. It really should not be a complicated process and most auditors will have a checklist or something similar that you can go through step by step.

I agree with the above. Always good to have options and I'm sure some will prefer the alternative layout. I like the default :)

Your what is the actual language in your document (AA, base document, loan policy, loan note, etc)

I would prefer to not defend either