Leaderboard

I think attempting to get law enforcement involved is probably the worst thing to do, at least as a first step. She needs a lawyer to start applying pressure, maybe a not-so-veiled threat of contacting law enforcement would be a part of it, but her first concern is to get the money if she's entitled to it.

What about the attorney that helped you during the divorce? If they didn't do their job then, they should help now. Or they might need to be sued for malpractice. That's not something an attorney should have missed.

No, the accountant must have some other agenda, or mistakenly thinks the rate of return on the 401(k) accounts has some impact on the DB plan.

lost power at the house for about 18 hours. not bad. and most of that at night, and not being much of a TV watcher even less of a problem for me perhaps no house damage, that I can tell early in the morning have a nice grapefruit that is partially uprooted, hopefully I can get that back in May God watch over those who suffered worse.

The thought occurs that they may be taking the (questionable?) position for tax purposes that there is no earned income so as to avoid self-employment tax.

Just as followup on this thread, Peter and I did have a very pleasant discussion on this topic. Since the "devil is in the details" I can't really say much more for this thread, except that it does make sense to sometimes take a topic further. This situation if NOT as simplistic as it should be. I recommend that should you find yourself faced with a similar issue, give Peter Gulia a call. His contact info is under his signature.

Unfortunately, the person being unpaid now (who is supposed to be forced out) probably means that they are missing. When the person is missing, it can easily happen that they are not paid out before filing for Social Security. If, after this year, they are found/forced out, they are just reported again with a "D". I know that is the way it's supposed to work. But I've found that reporting the distribution does not necessarily prevent the SSA from telling the participant they still have money in the plan. You are correct, the SSA is a mess when it comes to telling people that they have assets in an old plan, even when you report them as distributed. But government shortcomings doesn't change our duty to report. It is just a risky position for a TPA to take when it is clearly not supported by rules or regs. In theory, each client they do this for could be on the hook for $5,000 in penalties per return.

Why not? What I am trying to understand is why can't the trustee just stop payment on the stale checks and issue new ones? Wanting to return the money to the plan sponsor makes no sense.