Retirement Benefits

Apr 2022 : Flexible Use of Funds in a Defined Contribution Plan E.G. – 401(K) – Received Via a QDRO in a Divorce Settlement

Posted by Joseph W. Cunningham, JD, CPA

View / Download April 2022 Article – PDF File

Tax Trends and Developments Column – Michigan Family Law Journal

Receipt of an interest of a defined contribution (DC) plan pursuant to a QDRO can provide funds to serve many purposes on a relatively low-cost basis. DC plans are also referred to as “account balance” plans.

First, most such assignments of an interest in a DC plan – such as a 401(k) or savings plan – can be drawn as a lump sum distribution.

Second, such distributions are not subject to the 10% federal penalty tax applicable to distributions payable to someone under 59.5 years old.

Third, the recipient of such a distribution has 3 options regarding the funds:

  1. Pay regular tax on the distribution.
  2. Roll the distribution into an IRA – either existing or newly created – so that the funds can grow tax-free until later drawn out, usually at retirement
  3. A combination of options 1 and 2 – that is, pay tax on part of the distribution while rolling the balance into an IRA.

The above sets the stage for some creativity when there is a need for cash.

Example 1

  • The wife (W), 40 years old, receives $50,000, half of H’s $100,000 401(k) account balance, via a QDRO assignment.
  • She needs $15,000 to pay her attorney.
  • So, she rolls $32,000 into an IRA, pays $3,000 tax on the other $18,000, netting the $15,000 she needs for attorney fees.

Example 2

  • H and W owe $20,000 of credit card debt.
  • W has a $100,000 401(k) account balance.
  • She transfers $62,500 to H via a QDRO, retaining $32,500.
  • Their divorce settlement provides (1) that H is solely obligated to pay the credit card debt; (2) that he will do so within 5 business days of receiving the 401(k) distribution; and (3) that he will provide documentation of the payment to W within 5 days thereof.
  • H rolls $32,500 into an IRA, pays $5,000 tax on $25,000, netting the $20,000 needed to pay the credit card debt.

The above are simple examples of strategic use of DC plan funds in a divorce settlement. The uses are as varied as the cash needs of divorcing parties – such as a down payment on a new condominium, paying student loans, college expenses, etc.

It is noteworthy that:

  • Once DC plan distribution funds are rolled into an IRA, they are no longer exempt from the 10% penalty tax if withdrawn before age 59.5.
  • Regarding rolling some or part of a distribution into an IRA, it is highly advisable to arrange in advance for a “trustee-to-trustee” transfer directly from the plan into the IRA.
  • DC plans will generally withhold 20% federal tax on lump sum distributions. This can be avoided if a “trusteeto- trustee” transfer is arranged in advance.

About the Author

Joe Cunningham has over 25 years of experience specializing in financial and tax aspects of divorce, including business valuation, valuing and dividing retirement benefits, and developing settlement proposals. He has lectured extensively for ICLE, the Family Law Section, and the MACPA. Joe is also the author of numerous journal articles and chapters in family law treatises. His office is in Troy, though his practice is statewide.

Download the PDF file below… “Flexible Use of Funds in a Defined Contribution Plan E.G. – 401(K) – Received Via a QDRO in a Divorce Settlement”
View / Download April 2022 Article – PDF File

Complete Michigan Family Law Journal available at: Michigan Bar website – Family Law Section (subscription required)

Read More “Apr 2022 : Flexible Use of Funds in a Defined Contribution Plan E.G. – 401(K) – Received Via a QDRO in a Divorce Settlement”

Jun/Jul 2021 : Court of Appeals Affirms Trial Court Holding that the Award to W of a Portion of H’s Federal Pension Did Not Include a Survivorship Benefit Gray v Gray, Mich App No. 344636 (June 25, 2020) Unpublished

Posted by Joseph W. Cunningham, JD, CPA

View / Download June/July 2021 Article – PDF File

Tax Trends and Developments Column – Michigan Family Law Journal

Facts

  • In their Consent Judgment of Divorce, it was provided that W would receive a coverture fraction share of H’s Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) pension plan (Plan).
  • The Judgment also provided that W would be “entitled to her prorated share of any and all other ancillary benefits associated with the Plan.”
  • W submitted a proposed Court Order Acceptable for Processing (COAP—essentially a QDRO for CSRS plans—which provided her with a survivor benefit.
  • H objected, claiming that in the divorce negotiations it was noted that his pension did not provide a survivor annuity for W.
  • He further claimed that creating a survivor benefit for W would reduce his pension benefit by 10%.
  • H’s counsel stated that a survivor annuity was not a regular part of the Plan and that such a benefit “would be a separate and distinct benefit.”
  • W’s counsel stated that under MCL 552.101(4), all components of a pension plan are assigned with a retirement plan benefit divided in divorce.
  • The trial court noted that the parties negotiated the specific percentage that W would receive and, further, that they made no provisions applicable on the death of either party.
  • Hence, the court ruled that the parties did not contemplate survivor benefits and that the COAP should not provide for any.
  • W appealed.

Court of Appeals Decision

  • In an unpublished decision, the Court upheld the trial court’s ruling.
  • In doing so, the Court noted that the situation was similar to that in the published case of Hudson v. Hudson, 314 Mich App 28 (2016).
  • In Hudson, the Court ruled that H, an alternate payee of 39.5% of W’s state pension, could not elect a benefit option of a single life annuity based on his life, an option to which W was not entitled to elect on her share of H’s federal pension.
  • H claimed that pursuant to MCL 552.101(4), he was entitled to all components associated with W’s pension.
  • To this the Hudson Court stated the question was whether the right to select a particular payment option was a “component” of the plan subject to the statute. The Court ruled that it was not such a component and held against H’s claim.
  • The Court in Gray held that W’s assertion that the survivor benefit – specifically referred to as a “component” in MCL 552.101(4) – was “foreclosed for the reasons this Court articulated in Hudson.”
  • In a persuasive dissent, Judge Ronayne Krause essentially stated that (1) Hudson did not apply to the Gray circumstances and (2) under the plain meaning of MCL 552.101(4), a survivor benefit is a component of a plan.

Comments on the Case

  • The facts in the Gray case are complicated, including that:
    • The plan involved was federal pension about which less is generally understood than with the more common commercial company plans.
    • It was noted in the trial transcript that it had been agreed at mediation that W’s lawyer was to prepare a letter with questions about the government plan. Apparently this letter, if sent, did not ask about survivor benefits.
    • And, according to H’s counsel, survivor benefits were not part of the plan but rather were “separate
      and distinct.”
  • Takeaway – It is virtually always preferable to specify in the Judgment or Settlement Agreement, as the case may be, what benefits are included with the transfer of a retirement benefit.

Otherwise, issues such as those in Gray and Hudson may arise.

About the Author

Joe Cunningham has over 25 years of experience specializing in financial and tax aspects of divorce, including business valuation, valuing and dividing retirement benefits, and developing settlement proposals. He has lectured extensively for ICLE, the Family Law Section, and the MACPA. Joe is also the author of numerous journal articles and chapters in family law treatises. His office is in Troy, though his practice is statewide.

Download the PDF file below… “Court of Appeals Affirms Trial Court Holding that the Award to W of a Portion of H’s Federal Pension Did Not Include a Survivorship Benefit Gray v Gray, Mich App No. 344636 (June 25, 2020) Unpublished”
View / Download June/July 2021 Article – PDF File

Complete Michigan Family Law Journal available at: Michigan Bar website – Family Law Section (subscription required)

Read More “Jun/Jul 2021 : Court of Appeals Affirms Trial Court Holding that the Award to W of a Portion of H’s Federal Pension Did Not Include a Survivorship Benefit Gray v Gray, Mich App No. 344636 (June 25, 2020) Unpublished”

Aug / Sept 2019 : Bankruptcy Exemption May Not Apply To Retirement Benefits Received In Divorce – Lerbakken v Sieloff & Associates, PA, NO. 18-6018 (8th Cir. 2018)

Posted by Joseph W. Cunningham, JD, CPA

View / Download Aug-Sept 2019 Article – PDF File

Tax Trends and Developments Column – Michigan Family Law Journal

Background

  • In his 2014 divorce settlement, Mr. Lerbakken (Mr. L) received half of his wife’s 401(k) account and 100% of her IRA.
  • He subsequently filed for bankruptcy protection. One of his creditors was Sieloff & Associates. The firm that handled Mr. L’s divorce and remained unpaid.
  • Mr. L claimed that the 401(k) account and the IRA received in the divorce were exempt from claims of creditors as retirement assets under 11 U.S.C. Section 522(d)(12).
  • The bankruptcy court disallowed Mr. L’s claimed exemption for the 401(k) and the IRA.
  • Mr. L. appealed to the 8th Circuit Court.

8th Circuit Court Ruling

  • The 8th Circuit Court (Court) upheld the lower court’s disallowance of the exemption.
  • The Court referred to a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that an inherited IRA did not qualify as a retirement asset qualifying for the bankruptcy exemption. Clark v Rameker, 134 SCt 2242 (2014).
  • In so ruling, the United States Supreme Court indicated that retirement funds for purposes of the bankruptcy exemption meant funds set aside to be available when one stopped working and, hence, did not apply to an inherited IRA.
  • The Court ruled that a retirement asset received as part of a property settlement does not qualify for the exemption either.
  • The Court was not swayed by Mr. L’s claim that his wife’s 401(k) and IRA were accumulated specifically for their joint retirement.
  • It was also noted that Mr. L had not rolled the assigned funds into his own retirement account. He could not even produce a QDRO indicating that he had accessed his as-signed share of the 401(k).

Comments on the Case

  • The Court seemed to narrowly construe the statute since, as Mr. L asserted, the funds in question were in fact set aside for his and his former wife’s retirement.
  • The division of the parties’ retirement assets is frequently done with the objective of providing each party with sufficient financial security for retirement years.
  • Where bankruptcy is a possibility, to lessen the chances of what happened to Mr. L, retirement funds received in a divorce should be accessed promptly and rolled into one’s own retirement account.
  • QDRO preparation and processing should be attended to forthwith after a divorce.

About the Author

Joe Cunningham has over 25 years of experience specializing in financial and tax aspects of divorce, including business valuation, valuing and dividing retirement benefits, and developing settlement proposals. He has lectured extensively for ICLE, the Family Law Section, and the MACPA. Joe is also the author of numerous journal articles and chapters in family law treatises. His office is in Troy, though his practice is statewide.

Download the PDF file below… “Bankruptcy Exemption May Not Apply To Retirement Benefits Received In Divorce – Lerbakken v Sieloff & Associates, PA, NO. 18-6018 (8th Cir. 2018)”
View / Download Aug-Sept 2019 Article – PDF File

Complete Michigan Family Law Journal available at: Michigan Bar website – Family Law Section (subscription required)

Read More “Aug / Sept 2019 : Bankruptcy Exemption May Not Apply To Retirement Benefits Received In Divorce – Lerbakken v Sieloff & Associates, PA, NO. 18-6018 (8th Cir. 2018)”

November 2017 : Court of Appeals (1) Approves Trial Court’s Award to W of Part of H’s Pension Accrued Before Marriage and (2) Rules It Is Not an Invasion of His Separate Property – Koch, Mich App No. 333020 (7/18/17)

Posted by Joseph W. Cunningham, JD, CPA
Michigan Family Law Journal : TAX TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS Feature

by Joseph W. Cunningham, JD, CPA

Facts

  • H and W were separated in 2014, in part due to alleged multiple incidents of spousal abuse, and were subsequently divorced after 27 years of marriage.
  • At the time of divorce, H, 55, was receiving a pension of $51,880 annually while W, 54, was earning $15,058 at a parochial school district where she had worked for 22 years.
  • Part of H’s pension was accrued before the 1987 marriage.
  • H had health insurance as part of his retirement package while W did not have employer paid health insurance.
  • In view of (1) H’s fault for the breakdown of the marriage and (2) the disparate financial circumstances of the parties, the trial court awarded W 55% of H’s pension as spousal support.
  • H appealed, claiming that by awardingW 55% of his pension, the trial court inappropriately invaded his separate property.

Court of Appeals (COA/Court) Decision

  • The COA upheld the trial court decision and ruled that it did not invade H’s separate estate.
  • The COA stated the following regarding whether a trial court’s jurisdiction was limited to retirement plan contributions made during marriage:
[M CL 552.18(1)} does not expressly restrict the circuit court’s jurisdiction to pension contributions made within the confines of the marriage. Although that statutory provision
provides that pension contributions made during the marriage must be considered, it does not expressly provide that contributions made before the marriage may not be considered. That is, the language is inclusive and mandates what must be taken into account, but does not expressly exclude consideration of other contributions. [Boonstra, 209 Mich App at 562]
  • Further, the Court stated that the following rationale has been adopted regarding whether pension benefits accrued pre-marriage may be divided in divorce:

The major consideration is the security of the family and the court may utilize any property in the real and personal estate of either party to achieve suitable support for the family as the court considers just and reasonable after considering the ability of either party to pay and the character and the situation of the parties, and all the other circumstances of the case. [Booth, 194 Mich App 284,290(1992); Pickering, 268 Mich App 1,9(2005).

  • Thus, the COA decided that in light of the circumstances of the case,“it was ‘just and reasonable’ for the trial court to include in its considerations the portion of Defendant’s pension that had accrued before the marriage. Booth, 194 Mich App 291.”
  • Finally, the Court stated that because the trial court did not consider H’s pension accrued before marriage as his separate property, it did not have to consider the statutory exceptions (i.e., need or contribution) for invading a separate estate under MCL552.23.

Comments on the Case

  • Essentially, the COA ruled that when pre-marital retirement benefits are involved, a “just and reasonable” standard for providing “suitable support of the family” is the paramount consideration.
  • And, if awarded as spousal support, neither exception for invading separate property need be established to justify the award.
    Rather, ensuring the “suitable support of the family” takes precedence.
  • This seems to run counter to typical compliance with the Reeves mandate to first identify the (1) marital and (2) separate components of the parties’ various property interests.
  • What then is done in lock-step fashion is to treat the respective marital and separate property components of the total estate accordingly.
  • But, as we know, if one party establishes “need” under MCL552.23, the other’s separate property may be invaded to suitably provide for the need.
  • What the unpublished Koch decision indicates is that when a pre-marital retirement benefit is involved and need is established, paying it as spousal support vs. an invasion of separate property is an option.
  • This seems somewhat at odds with the 1997 Reeves decision mandate. However, if “need” is established, the substantive result is similar either way – that is, use of pre-marital retirement benefits to satisfy the need.

Food for Thought

  • “Need” sometimes consists of inadequate retirement security coupled with the lack of ability and/or time post-divorce to establish sufficient funds for support in retirement years.
  • In such a case, if the other party has a 401(k) or qualified plan savings account which includes a pre-marital component, the, “suitable support of the family” standard might justify use of one party’s pre-marital retirement account to provide for the other’s suitable support in retirement years.

About the Author

Joe Cunningham has over 25 years of experience specializing in financial and tax aspects of divorce, including business valuation, valuing and dividing retirement benefits, and developing settlement proposals. He has lectured extensively for ICLE, the Family Law Section, and the MACPA. Joe is also the author of numerous journal articles and chapters in family law treatises. His office is in Troy, though his practice is statewide.

……

Download the PDF file below… “Court of Appeals (1) Approves Trial Court’s Award to W of Part of H’s Pension Accrued Before Marriage and (2) Rules It Is Not an Invasion of His Separate Property – Koch, Mich App No. 333020 (7/18/17)”
View / Download November 2017 Article – PDF File

Complete Michigan Family Law Journal available at: Michigan Bar website – Family Law Section (subscription required)

Read More “November 2017 : Court of Appeals (1) Approves Trial Court’s Award to W of Part of H’s Pension Accrued Before Marriage and (2) Rules It Is Not an Invasion of His Separate Property – Koch, Mich App No. 333020 (7/18/17)”

Aug / Sept 2017 : In a Published Case, Court of Appeals Approves Entry of QDRO 12 Years Post Date of Divorce–JOUGHIN, No. 329993 (7/11/2017)

Posted by Joseph W. Cunningham, JD, CPA
Michigan Family Law Journal : TAX TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS Feature

by Joseph W. Cunningham, JD, CPA

Facts

  • H and W were divorced on April 28, 2003.
  • The Judgment of Divorce (JOD) awarded W (1) 50% of H’s pension accrued as of April 30, 2002 and (2) $23,823 from his profit-sharing plan account.
  • The JOD provided that both parties “shall cooperate” in obtaining and processing the QDROs necessary to effectuate the transfers to W.
  • For reasons not apparent on the record, the QDROs were not promptly filed. Instead, W submitted the QDROs for entry with the trial court on June 30, 2015- more than 12 years post-divorce.
  • H objected claiming that W’s submission of the QDROs for entry was an attempt to enforce the 2003 JOD and, hence, was time-barred under MCL 600.5809(3), which provides a 10-year statute of limitations applicable to attempts to enforce a noncontractual money obligation.
  • W responded that because her claim did not arise until H reached retirement age, that the statute had not yet begun to run.
  • Because H had not retired nor received any of his retirement benefits, the trial court entered the QDROs.
  • H appealed.

Court of Appeals Decision

  • The Court disagreed with the parties’ position that MCL 600.5809 applied to entry of a QDRO.
  • Rather, the Court cited a previous decision that “when a judgment of divorce requires a QDRO to be entered, the QDRO is to be considered as part of the divorce judgment.”
  • Accordingly, the Court stated that “because the QDRO is part of the judgment, it necessarily cannot be viewed as enforcing the same judgment.” *** “Instead, we hold that under these circumstances, the act to obtain entry of a proposed QDRO is a ministerial task done in conjunction with the divorce judgment itself.”
  • Thus, the Court concluded that entry of the QDROs was not time-barred
  • Judge Kathleen Jansen wrote a vigorous dissent claiming, for various reasons, that entry of the QDRO after 10 years was barred by the statute of limitations.

Comments on the Case

  • Obviously, the case is a “poster child” for the importance of preparing and processing QDROs promptly – either contemporaneous with entry of the divorce judgment or soon thereafter.
  • Based on many years’ experience of preparing QDROs for legal aid clients under a pro bono program administered by the State Bar, QDROs unfiled for years following divorce are not uncommon. This case – a rare family law published case – indicates that the passage of 10 years or more does not bar entry of a QDRO.
  • However, in Joughin, the participant had not begun to receive benefits. Had he done so, or remarried, or died, the situation would likely have been much more problematic for the alternate payee.
  • And, the Joughin judgment provision reprinted in the Court’s opinion did not provide that W’s share of H’s profit-sharing plan account would be adjusted proportionately for gains or losses of plan investments. With the sharp advance of the stock market from 2003 through 2015, W paid a high price for not timely attending to the QDROs.
  • In this regard, there is no precedent regarding whether the right to receive a proportional share of plan gains and losses passes automatically under state law with the transfer via QDRO of an interest in an account balance plan such as a 401(k) or profit-sharing plan as in Joughin.
  • Unless transferring a set dollar amount, it is highly advisable to include such a provision in both the JOD and the QDRO.

About the Author

Joe Cunningham has over 25 years of experience specializing in financial and tax aspects of divorce, including business valuation, valuing and dividing retirement benefits, and developing settlement proposals. He has lectured extensively for ICLE, the Family Law Section, and the MACPA. Joe is also the author of numerous journal articles and chapters in family law treatises. His office is in Troy, though his practice is statewide.

Download PDF file below… “In a Published Case, Court of Appeals Approves Entry of QDRO 12 Years Post Date of Divorce–JOUGHIN, No. 329993 (7/11/2017)”
View / Download Aug-Sept 2017 Article – PDF File

Complete Michigan Family Law Journal available at: Michigan Bar website – Family Law Section (subscription required)

Read More “Aug / Sept 2017 : In a Published Case, Court of Appeals Approves Entry of QDRO 12 Years Post Date of Divorce–JOUGHIN, No. 329993 (7/11/2017)”