RatherBeGolfing

No worries :)

Well I should probably say that I meant favorite as in who the hell came up with this idea rather than what a great idea! But that is what you get from the Veeck's, nothing is off limits

My favorite Bill Veeck and Mike Veeck promotions include "Tonya Harding Bat Night" and "Nobody Night", but "Disco Demolition" clearly had the worst outcome

You need a PPA restatement.

Are there still assets in the plan?

A does not prove B. Just because it comes from a federal prosecutor does NOT mean it is enforceable. For what its worth, the EOB only mentions the 9th as having adopted this position. That doesn't mean that other circuits haven't, but Sal is pretty good about updating things like that. As to the original question, withholding does apply, but there is no penalty for premature distribution. For your reading pleasure, see the 2017 ERISA Outline Book Chapter 3B - Part 2 - Section XI - Part A.

Gotcha thanks. My very limited understanding was that federal court could order garnishment because it would be treated as a tax. But now that I think of it, that would probably be limited to fines ordered by the court since it is payable to the government rather than a third party.

No authority in general, or in the orders you received?

It is times like these when I am so happy that I deleted my facebook back when myspace was still the more popular alternative...

Son was never an employee of dad's practice, he was an IC. So maybe he was a sole prop as an IC and counts that prior service but not prior service at dad's practice...

The line "we don't need no stinkin' badgers" was also used in the 1989 Weird Al Yankovic classic "UHF" Popular line to parody

Are the employees in for sure? That was my first reaction but as more details are coming out, I'm not so sure. Depending on other unknown details, why couldn't son require a year of service? 1. It is an asset sale. 2. Son wants to start a new plan. In an asset sale, the employees have severed employment with dad's company and are now new employees of son's company. He does not have to credit service in dad's company for the new plan in his company.

Pretty much every opinion I have heard or read has said it is NOT preempted. I have talked to many ERISA attorneys who will outline the possible implications of non-compliance and many who take Larry's approach of "who cares, nothing is going to happen". That said, I have never talked to one who can mention a single example where non-compliance has actually become a problem.

Maybe I'm missing something, but since the plan is paying the expenses, shouldn't the fee (or the formula for calculating the fee) have been disclosed ahead of time? Or are we discussing future changes?

Indeed it is

It is worth pointing out that ALL parties to the document are liable for the tax. The state doesn't care who pays it, so if the participant refuses, the plan is still on the hook.

So we have a double whammy He cannot disregard the EEs service just because he didn't own it at the time He cannot count his time as an IC because he wasn't an employee

How about ERISA § 412, 29 C.F.R. § 2580.412-11

My emphasis in bold. Wife must consent to the mother as beneficiary. I'm not sure I see the controversy

In Florida we have what is called a "document stamp tax". It is an excise tax on certain documents like deeds and promissory notes. ERISA plans are not exempt and applies to all loans executed in Florida. The tax rate is 70.cents per $100, or maximum $350 tax on a $50,000 loan. You can pay it online, by mail or in person. Technically, failure to pay the doc stamp tax could mean that the loan is unenforceable, which of course could have a cascading effect on the the loan and the plan. I have never heard of a loan actually being disqualified due to failure to pay the doc stamp tax. Very few plans and/or service providers actually comply with the doc stamp tax. Most service providers will simply inform the plan and participant that they also owe a doc stamp tax to the state but that they do not fill out the paperwork etc, so it is it falls on the plan/participant to make the payment. We do the doc stamps for some of our clients but the vast majority simply say "ok, I have been informed, I'll roll the dice". The only service provider I knew of in Florida that did doc stamps for ALL their clients, was recently acquired by a major national provider who to my knowledge does NOT do doc stamps.

No panda Larry?

They are up Dave. At least for me.

Ok so I have been thinking on this a little bit more (and reading the EOB, because it is Saturday after all)... Per treasury reg §1.411(a)-11(c)(6), the notice and consent requirements do not apply to an alternate payee unless required by the QDRO. In other words, unless the QDRO states that the AP shall be provided with notices and must consent to the distribution, you can distribute the asserts based on the QDRO alone However, if the distribution is in the form of an eligible rollover distribution (single-sum distribution), the 402(f) notice is required, as is the 30 day election period. Could the attorney perhaps be thinking that notice and consent isn't required per treasury reg §1.411(a)-11(c)(6), not realizing that the 402(f) notice and election period is still required if it is in the form of an eligible rollover distribution? Again, I think the attorney is the issue rather than the DRO itself. You are still correct in requiring your 402(f) notice though, she can't require that you not provide it (even though it seems she is already electing a rollover, so the purpose of the notice is sort of moot) Also, I confirmed with the EOB that the DRO does not have make available to the AP all options available to the participant under the plan, it just cant give the AP an option that is not available to the participant. For your reading pleasure, see EOB Chapter 6 - Section VI - Part B

Just to be clear, does the DRO actually have language in it to prohibit you from sending an election form? Or is this what the attorney is telling you in addition to the DRO. If it is in the DRO, I wouldn't have a problem saying it is not a QDRO. If it is just what the attorney is telling you, you probably have a QDRO but with a PITA attorney who does not know how this works. In which case I would just stand my ground and not pay it out until they go through the elections, notices, etc.

Ok. So you file a 5330 and pay the tax but don't go through VFCP. There are several reasons why you may want to file VFCP in addition to paying your excise tax. Did you use the DOL calculator to figure out your lost earnings? If you did and did not file VFCP, the DOL can come back at you and say you can't use it, either file VFCP or redo your calculations without the calculator. Even if you didn't use the calculator, filing the 5330 does not grant you relief for fiduciary violations, it just means you paid tax on a prohibited transaction. So in short, you can sometimes avoid filing a 5330 when filing VFCP, but you can't avoid filing VFCP by filing a 5330. You are correcting different issues, but under limited circumstances, correcting one can give you relief on the other.