Search the Community

Defined Contribution Plan. Plan language states that the benefit options available are a QJSA (if married), a lump sum, or partial benefits. If a Participant doesn't have contributions for 6 months, he can take a lump sum, even if not at retirement age (ignore the tax consequences for the sake of this scenario). At issue is another provision. The Plan also has language that says that an Alternate Payee may make a voluntary cash-out in a lump sum so long as it has been 1 year since the divorce. Now, a Participant can get his money in a lump sum after 6 months. The Alternate Payee has to wait a year. Is that permissible? Keep in mind that this language has been in the Plan since the early 2000s and the Plan has received 2 favorable determination letters since the language was inserted in the Plan. Now, I understand that the IRS doesn't really look at these Plans with a magnifying glass (well, some agents do), and I understand that, if the Plan language is improper then it needs to be changed. Now, with all the talk lately about sham divorces, this would be a possibly effective way to combat that (though if people really wanted to skirt the rules, they'd do it anyway). According to the DOL FAQ on QDROs: Now, that seems to say that the Plan can have provisions treating Alternate Payees and Participants differently by letting the Alternate Payee get her benefit sooner than a Participant or under different circumstances. Do you read it to say that a Plan can also impose greater limits on an Alternate Payee (under the "different circumstances" language)? Also applicable here is the DOL publication on QDROs, specifically part 2-15 From that same publication, part 3-8 It seems to me that there are some hurdles to enforcing the Plan's language. Now, if I can get the parties to agree to insert in the QDRO that the Alternate Payee won't have access to her account for one year, then I think that's ok. My bigger issue/question is the operation and language of the Plan. Your thoughts? Thanks.