Leaderboard

Nah, I don't see the point to be honest.

Scan 2023 signed SB with all 2023 attachments in one pdf file and attach it as "Other".

I read Paragraph 8(ii) to provide that investment earnings and losses do not accrue on the alternate payee’s specified dollar amount until the subaccount is actually created and the amount credited to the sub account (and allocated among the investment options, if that is what the plan usually does). This approach is very easy for the plan to administer because the earnings and losses take care of themselves and do not have to be calculated as part of establishing the alternate payee’s interest.

Sorry, I did not read the entire monograph. What I did read focuses on an important matter that is not relevant to the question at hand in this thread. The latter part of the monograph may address the question of a specified dollar amount, so my apologies if I have unnecessarily jumped on the first part without acknowledging that the monograph gets around to what is relevant here. The monograph begins by focus on when the alternate payee’s interest is determined, usually as a function of some date relevant to the divorce, such as when the divorce is determined to be final. The examples relate to determining a percentage of the participants account as of that key date. That amount, with the presumption of crediting earnings and losses until the “segregation” date, which I have referred to as the date that the plan actually creates the alternate payees subaccount, needs to be preserved through the interim time before implementation under the plan to be able to give effect to the words of the domestic relations order and the intended economic value of what was awarded. An award of a specified dollar amount is outside of the considerations described in the beginning of the monograph. The specified amount is determined without respect to any particular historical date in our case. The order itself instructs the plan administrator to simply use that specified amount when the administrator establishes the subaccount, and then give credit for earnings and losses after that. That is a clear statement of the intent of the court and the parties, which should be the determining factor in implementation of the order, not some state law legal presumption that involves a determination of amount that is dependent on a particular date rather than a specified amount. And, while abstract notions of fairness would suggest that determining the value as of the divorce date is the “correct” approach, it is rational for the parties to pick a specified amount, that the alternate payee is entitled to receive as of the time the amount is established under the plan, without respect to what the financial markets have done between the date of divorce and the time the plan gets around to establishing the sub account and making the amount available for distribution. The parties may have intended to protect the alternate payee against losses, at the possible expense of foregoing interim gains. That is for the parties to decide or the court to determine if there is some contest. It is certainly improper for a plan fiduciary to try to look into the purposes and intents of a domestic relations order and override the terms of the order (citations omitted, but available, and that’s THE LAW).

I dealt with a similar situation earlier this year, perhaps involving the same Russian ETF. The assets could not be transferred to the new recordkeeper via ACAT because they are subject to OFAC blocking sanctions. The fund wasn't available in the new SDBA so they could not be transferred in-kind, and these assets legally cannot be sold or traded so they could not be liquified. We discovered one participant had holdings in the Russian ETF during conversion, and we simply left those holdings at the prior recordkeeper. All other assets were transferred. We will continue to track and include these assets for 5500 purposes etc. until sanctions are lifted and they can be transferred or liquidated, or the underlying companies in the portfolio file bankruptcy and the holding can be written down to $0. The only other option we considered was whether the participant could take an in-service withdrawal and roll those assets into an IRA with the prior recordkeeper. The recordkeeper said they could accommodate this, and the participant was interested in doing it. Unfortunately, in our case the participant wasn't eligible for an in-service withdrawal.

The actual definition will be in the basic plan document.

That is how I read 8(ii) as well.

In order to be a safe harbor definition of comp, it has to include 125 deferrals as well as 401(k) deferrals. Box 5 is grossed up for 401(k) deferrals but not for 125 deferrals.

The short answer is that the participant must commence distribution of 100% of their accrued benefit no later than their required beginning date. However this is a very complicated topic and there are a lot of pitfalls and nuances to it. Mary Ann Rocco did an excellent 2-part webcast on this topic recently, it's available on-demand from ASEA if you want to learn more. https://www.asppa-net.org/asea/events/webcasts/on-demand/

Can you provide more details about what aspect you are questioning? The MRD is based on the accrued benefit. Are you asking about a traditional DB, or a cash balance plan? The plan doc contains provisions applicable to the form, timing, and amount of payment.

An overfunding should be treated as a Correction, rather than a True-Up.

Does anyone ever back-fill their designations when ASPPA issues new kinds that are lower-ranking than what one's already attained?

Thank you very much for your response. It seems I need to complete the QKC first. Best regards, John

Exactly, that would be a very plausible reason for final filing to show BOY $0 and EOY $0 as is the now worthless assets. Even if it is scrutinized, nothing to see here, just move along.

Track it separately and manually adjust whatever reports you get from RK B?