Leaderboard

I'd read the document very carefully. It sounds to me like the amount being restored may be more than what the document calls for.

Getting into the weeds on this one?

Because it is a big, international bank. The bigger they are the stupider they always are! Don't bother arguing; find a different bank. A small regional bank or a credit union is your best bet.

What you are being told is simply not true nor legal. You may need professional assistance as I even question whether the original determination of two accounts not being eligible for distribution to an alternate payee, but it is possible. You can try taking this on yourself, at least at first, by contacting the plan and telling them they are wrong, that a QDRO does NOT "age out" and they need to check with their own ERISA advisors before you go ahead and contact the Department of Labor on them. That might cause them to get some assistance from someone who knows what they are talking about. Good luck.

What similar situation? A plan administrator that incorrectly applies the QDRO rules? It happens all the time. If your circumstances are somewhere near correctly described, they are out of the ordinary. “Spun off” is a term of art that is suspicious in your description.

Sale proceeds are NOT earned income. No, you can't count THAT money as compensation. But they can PAY compensation to them for 2020 that would count.

Many governmental retirement plans have no provision for following a domestic-relations order. That Mississippi PERS has no responsibility to pay the non-participant might not preclude a court’s order that a retiree pay the non-participant. For one example, see https://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO96560.pdf The non-participant might want advice from a lawyer knowledgeable in Mississippi domestic-relations law and courts’ procedures, including chancery practice.

You say you will spinoff/restate, but I don't think that is right. You will spinoff and ESTABLISH a new plan, not restate it; Plan X continues in existence with no need for restatement due to the spinoff (obviously, the appropriate spinoff language needs to be adopted). If the plan sponsor of the plan was A and that tax ID number was used to identify the plan 001, then I would set up the new plan for B as 001 (assuming that employer with that tax ID never had a plan identified with its own EIN) and it would be the first 5500 for that plan. Line 4 would be left blank.