Leaderboard

Hi Carol -- We'd love to have the database and create a page on BenefitsLink, with credit to you. Let me know how I can get it and make it easy for you. What is this retirement thing of which you speak? I thought it was only mythology 🙂 CONGRATULATIONS!

Congrats! Enjoy those new challenges - I think it is important to retire TO something rather than FROM something. Good luck!

Thank you! And I'd love to have BenefitsLink take over that page. I've e-mailed you with information. Thanks, Bill! This is definitely bittersweet for me. I've been practicing employee benefits law for 46 years now, and maintaining my site for 28, and it's hard to walk away from all that. But I am 72, and it's time for a new chapter in my life. I've been accepted as a volunteer EMT trainee with a local fire department. That will be about a year of classes, practical training, and helping out the EMTs, after which I'll be certified as an EMT myself. Some questions have been raised as to whether I actually understand the meaning of "retire," which I hear is supposed to mean relaxing and playing golf or something. But I'm excited about the new challenges.

I did not read all of the posts in the thread but the OP states that payments are "in pay status". Maybe one of the posts stated that benefits are not in pay status... if so, disregard my post. This is because I view a coverture fraction only helpful when benefits are not "in pay status", i.e., benefits are going to start at a later date. Like you said, it is used because you know the numerator but do not know the denominator. The fraction allows for adjustments for the participant's additional service time post-divorce for which the alternate payee should not receive a benefit. For example, QDRO issued in YR 1 awards 50% of the coverture fraction. QDRO states at divorce the participant has 10 years of service and the alternate payee and participant were married for all of those years. When the participant retires in YR 21, they would have an additional 20 years of service. Benefits begin to be paid, so the alternate payee's portion of the monthly benefit payment would be 50% x 10/30 of the monthly benefit. The coverture fraction is needed to ensure the alternate payee does not benefit from the additional service when the payment start. If, as stated in the OP, payments are already started, I don't see a problem with amending the QDRO to do the math... using the example... the QDRO would simply state that the alternate payee should receive 16.67% of the monthly benefit. I am not saying the plan administrator is correct, I am just saying, practically speaking, amending the QDRO would be easier than arguing with the plan administrator or taking them to court.

I have now retired, and will no longer be updating my site. So for all of you who have been relying on my maximum benefits and contributions page for historical limits, it is unlikely I will be updating it and I may take it down at some point. However, I do have the database with all the limits back to 1996. If anyone wants it so that they can develop their own page, let me know.

Carol, I have made use of your list many a times over the years. Thanks so much. Great that BL will be taking it over. Good luck in your ACTIVE retirement!

As long as the fee is allowed by the plan, is reasonable, and disclosed in the participant fee disclosure notices I don't see a problem with it, though maybe I'm overlooking something. There are things you need to send participants beside payments at retirement or RMD age and if they don't notify you of address changes someone needs to pay to locate them, I don't see where charging the participant is problematic if it is part of the Plan's on going operations and uniformly applied.

Very best wishes Carol and good luck with your new "venture" which is like now giving back. You've joined Fred Reish's list of now 4 people who truly retired. Sal Tripodi, Sheldon Smith and (last but not least) Karen Jordan. Again have a wonderful life and thank you.

Happy retirement! I know I have a printoff of yours at least 20 years and four jobs ago detailing which Code sections don't apply to government plans, it's been a fantastic resource to have!

Thanks! And you're right--a big reason I waited this long to retire was that I didn't want to do so until I had something satisfying to do on the other side.

Non-elective, yes, but for nondiscrimination I think you have a problem if the amendment benefited only or primarily HCEs.

We do help our clients look for lost people who need an RMD as no one likes an uncashed check hanging on the books. We don't do it until very close to the RMD date or if the check really does go uncashed.

Well, this would be a wonderful thing!

Thanks Peter, I have an earlier edition of that, and also Shulman's handbook, both of which are helpful but neither of which provide much insight on this issue. I also haven't had any luck with searching similar cases on Fastcase or even Google scholar. I think that of PA's who want to insist on particular benefit division formats, most of which are reasonable, they do not get much pushback precisely because they are reasonable, and if one makes the point that under some circumstance or another that accommodation needs to made, most are reasonably accommodating. It is only in this case among the thousands of others I have come across that the PA's position is unsupportable. As none of our neighbors here have identified any authority that might support the PA's position either, I think what happens next is, if the plan's counsel wants to back the PA's decision, a judge will qualify the order, which will then be served, prequalified, on the plan. The plan will then either do the calculation or continue to refuse, prompting a formal claim for benefits, which the PA may also refuse, at which point the remaining option is federal court. My experience with federal courts is that they tend to read the federal statutes strictly, though of course past experience doesn't guarantee future results. A strict reading of § 206(d)(3)(C)'s subsection (ii), with its multiple "or"s, and a lack of published legal interpretation supporting the PA's refusal, could be helpful, but hopefully it won't get that far if the PA wants to avoid litigation. Sigh. Thank you all for your input and insights, and if you think of anything else, I'll be grateful to hear it, even if critical.

The rule for QDROs and RMDs is odd. See https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-1/subject-group-ECFR6f8c3724b50e44d/section-1.401(a)(9)-8#p-1.401(a)(9)-8(d)(2). YOu would think that once in a separate account it would be treated as the alternative payee's, but for RMD purposes it isn't. don't know why but that is what the Reg says. The alternate payee should consider @fmsinc's suggestion and roll the account balance into an IRA or she may be subject to this same RMD treatment next year, etc. That said, probably won't help with this year as the amount that is required to be an RMD this year normally cannot be rolled over. So, there likely would be two 1099-Rs issued, one with the RMD non-eligible rollover amount and one with the remaining eligible rollover amount.