Leaderboard

This is not definitive in any way, but maybe reasonable for an order-of-magnitude estimate: https://www.pbgc.gov/search-trusteed-plans search for "cash balance plan" yields 25 results. https://www.pbgc.gov/search-insured-plans search for "cash balance plan" yields 8,180 results. The number of cash balance plans trusteed by the PBGC is 0.31% of the number of cash balance plans insured by the PBGC.

You can, generally speaking, amend a plan to exclude a class of employees prospectively, as long as it doesn't cut back any benefit they have already accrued. However there is a rule under notice 2016-16 that says you can not amend a safe harbor plan mid-year to reduce the group of employees eligible for safe harbor contributions. Therefore the earliest you could make the plan amendment effective to exclude this person would be the beginning of the next plan year.

ERISA § 105(a)(2)(D)(v) states: The requirement . . . shall apply to pension benefit statements furnished more than 12 months after the latest of the issuance by the Secretary of— (I) interim final rules under clause (i); (II) the model disclosure under clause (ii); or (III) the assumptions under clause (iii). The interim final rule was published in the Federal Register on September 18, 2020. The publication covered all three elements. The rule’s last paragraph [(i)] states both an effective date and an applicability date. This section shall be effective on the date that is one year after the date of publication of the interim final rule, and shall be applicable to pension benefit statements furnished after such date. The rule applies to statements furnished after September 18, 2021. What is less obvious is how that “applicability date” relates to ERISA’s § 105(a)(2)(B), which permits the lifetime-income disclosure “to be included in only one pension benefit statement during any one 12-month period”, even if the administrator must furnish quarter-yearly statements.

Can you Trustee to Trustee transfer to an IRA, then withdraw from there? No withholding from IRAs.

If it talks about investment experience from 12/31/2018 the split will have gains/losses based on actual gains/losses on the account from 12/31/2018 to date of the account is split.

At the time the QDRO was prepared, the language you describe is awarding her a portion of any increase, which (conceptually) is no different than awarding alimony as a percent of future earnings. Your company plans to calculate her share based on the terms of the QDRO itself, not based on how you (later) wish it had been written. How could they do differently? If you disagree with the interpretation of the QDRO, say so, and present your facts. Get the advice of your own attorney (ie, one who is familiar with QDROs). Just a hunch: it may not matter that you later describe it as "unfair".

Good luck does not fall under the definition of a right or feature under 1.401(a)(4)-4(e)(3).

If the plan is ERISA-governed, here’s the statute: . . . . If there is a modification or change . . ., a summary description of such modification or change shall be furnished not later than 210 days after the end of the plan year in which the change is adopted to each participant, and to each beneficiary who is receiving benefits under the plan. ERISA § 104(b)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 1024(b)(1) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title29-section1024&num=0&edition=prelim And here’s the rule: The administrator of an employee benefit plan subject to the provisions of part 1 of title I of the Act shall, in accordance with § 2520.104b-1(b), furnish a summary description of any material modification to the plan and any change in the information required by section 102(b) of the Act and § 2520.102-3 of these regulations to be included in the summary plan description to each participant covered under the plan and each beneficiary receiving benefits under the plan. [T]he plan administrator shall furnish this summary, written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average plan participant, not later than 210 days after the close of the plan year in which the modification or change was adopted. 29 C.F.R. § 2520.104b-3(a) https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=96555d37ef6921ab11a7509085f13758&mc=true&node=se29.9.2520_1104b_63&rgn=div8 But a fiduciary’s responsibility under ERISA § 404(a) might require communication, at least to those who might have some choice under the changed provision, much sooner than the time otherwise allowed for a summary plan description or summary of material modifications.