Title: Texas QDRO: Post-Divorce Contributions in a TIAA RA/CREF Defined Contribution Plan ("Date of Transfer")

I am seeking insight from QDRO drafters or plan administrators regarding a Texas case involving a Defined Contribution plan—specifically TIAA-CREF RA, CREF, and non-CREF funds—and ongoing post-divorce contributions. Because these are active market-tied funds, they are moving significantly up or down with current market fluctuations. The RA receives ½ of the monthly contribution from (employer/employee), and ½ to CREF.

The divorce was finalized in December 2025. The contracts remain active, meaning the Participant continues making regular monthly contributions, commingling his post-divorce separate property with the community base. The Alternate Payee's attorney is currently preparing the initial DRO draft to submit for TIAA pre-approval.

The MSA, incorporated into the Final Decree, explicitly awards the Alternate Payee "50% of the community property interest of the total vested account balance as of the date of transfer excluding any outstanding loans but including any interest, dividends, gains, or losses on that amount arising since that date." Crucially, the decree contains no explicit carve-out instructing the plan to exclude post-divorce contributions.

My questions are:

1. The Mechanical "What": Because TIAA executes mechanically based on the "Date of Transfer," will they simply apply the 50% pro-rata split to the total commingled unit balance on the actual transfer date without retroactively untangling the post-divorce contributions?
2. The Drafting Rules: Can a QDRO drafter legally introduce a retroactive carve-out for those contributions if it was never authorized or mentioned in the underlying Rule 11 agreement or MSA? (Note: The Participant has not made any claims to these post-divorce contributions during this ongoing delay).
3. The Legal "Why": If the Alternate Payee does indeed receive a share of these commingled post-divorce contributions due to the "Date of Transfer" language, why is this the default outcome? Does it come down to strict contract law (interpreting the literal text of the decree), or is it driven by the administrative impossibility of plan administrators untangling commingled accumulation units months after the fact?

Any insight into TIAA's mechanical administration of this scenario, Texas drafting standards, or the reasoning behind how these commingled funds are handled would be greatly appreciated.

Section 305 of Secure Act 2.0 seems to greatly expand the use of Self-Correction of plan errors. This is a good thing.

It appears to also allow for the self-correction of significant demographic errors like failing a 401(a)4 Nondiscrimination test. The confusing part of this is where it indicates that the plan must follow the correction methods and procedures of 1.401(a)4-11g . One of the requirements of 11g is that the correction is made by the 15th day after the 9th month following the close of the plan year (October 15). However, 305 of the Secure Act 2.0 allows for correction by the 18th month after discovery of the plan failure.

Suppose you have a 12/31/2024 plan year end and it is discovered on 12/15/2025 that the plan sponsor did not execute (inadvertently) the 11g amendment provided to them on 10/1/2025. To me, this would be the failure and this failure was discovered 12/15/2025 and would need to be corrected under Self Correction by 6/15/2027 (18 months). Actually, what happened here was that the plan sponsor funded the extra $765 to a participant before the 10/15/2025 date but inadvertently set aside the amendment and did not sign it by the 10/15/2025 date.

What do you think applies to be able to Self Correct the error?  the 11g amendment requirement itself that the amendment be executed by 10/15/2025 or the overall Self Correction requirement that the amendment be executed by 18 months after the discovery of the failure (despite having funded the additional contribution before 10/15/2025)?

Thanks.  

This one seems easy but confirmation is always appreciated.

Company A:

Dad owns 78%

Trust #1 owns 11% (trust is a non-grantor trust for which Dad's adult daughter X is the trustee and sole beneficiary)

Trust #2 owns 11% (same as above but for Dad's adult son Y)

Company B:

Dad owns 50%

Trust #3 owns 25% (trust is a non-grantor trust for which X is the trustee and sole beneficiary)

Trust #4 owns 25% (same as above but for Y)

Brother-sister controlled group or not?

I think YES, for these reasons:

1. The trust shares are attributed to X and Y (and for the Company A shares, those are attributed to Dad)

2. After attribution:

Company A:

Dad owns 78% (100% by attribution)

X owns 11%

Y owns 11%

Company B:

Dad owns 50%

X owns 25%

Y owns 25%

Dad, X and Y own more than 80% of both Company A and Company B, and more than 50% of Company A and Company B taking into account identical ownership (50% Dad, 11% X and 11% Y).

Anyone disagree?

Intent is to avoid politics here. The situation goes back to 2018.

Missing participant who was not cashing RMD checks has been found and turns out was never missing, just doesn't want to cash a check for fear of being located by the government. Unknown whether participant is legal or illegal but there is an SSNO (Sorry I don't know details about all that). Yes 1099-R's are sent annually.

Just trying to be creative here on how to get them their money. One idea - has anyone ever managed to get cash from a Plan to give out the RMD rather than in check form?

Total account balance is < $20,000.  Total outstanding uncashed RMD's < $1,000.

I have a prior client who terminated their DB plan back in 2021. He recently applied for his benefit in the PWGA plan (he is deemed "a loan out corporation") and was expecting around 5,000/month. When we terminated his plan, he had 6 years of participation and received a lump sum based on 60% of the 2021 dollar limit. Logically, I feel he should still have 40% of the dollar limit left (he has over 10 years of participation when combined), but the PWGA plan froze the 415 dollar limit at the 2007 level. Because of this, they have taken the position that the 180,000 (prior to reductions) is the 415 limit and reduced his benefit to roughly 1,500 (claiming the full amount would violate 415). This is true if using the 180,000 dollar limit from 2007, but not an issue when using current dollar limits (following a good faith interpretation of 415 rules with MASD's)

For 415 aggregation purposes, it seems logical to use the unfrozen limit (allowing him to receive his full benefit in the PWGA plan), but I can't seem to find any guidance. Had he commenced benefits in the PWGA plan first, I would have reflected that benefit with the single employer plan and concluded there was no issue. Why should the order matter? Has anyone come across this issue?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Has anyone seen an expanded Uniform Lifetime Table that lists ages less than 70?

Per the SECURE 2.0 changes, spousal beneficiaries can now elect to use the ULT factors instead of the SLA factors when they inherit a qualified retirement plan account.  Under the final regulations, it appears that a spousal beneficiary must still begin RMDs as of the December 31st of the year in which the participant would have reach RMD age, if she has not moved her balance to an IRA.  (Derrin Watson has a good explanation here: https://ferenczylaw.com/flashpoint-the-final-rmd-regulations-the-high-points/)

 For example, a participant born in 1953 dies in 2021.  His spouse, born in 1957, does not move the balance out of the plan until 2026.  In 2026, the participant would have been 73, so an RMD must be distributed prior to rolling the balance to an IRA.  The spouse is only age 69, and she elects to use the more favorable ULT factors. 

I'm having a difficult time finding a ULT table based on the 2022 updates that lists ages less than 70 (most start at 72, but did find a few starting at age 70).

View the full text of this job opportunity

Would a travel trailer qualify as a principal residence?  Participant is wanting to purchase and place in a trailer park.  

View the full text of this job opportunity

I have always checked "yes" for this question because in the case when a terminated participant takes their payout in cash taxes need to be withheld.  The letter the plan receives from the IRS assigning an EIN mentions filing a 945 which has intimidated a new plan sponsor.  I reassured them that since no payouts have occurred resulting in federal withholding, a 945 is not required to be filed.  

I guess I am just looking to be reassured myself that I am doing this correctly... Yes?

Thanks!

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

CBP has fixed 6% interest crediting rate and (per pre-approved plan document selection) does NOT provide interim interest to the annuity starting date. Plan terminated, effective 12/31/2025 (also PYE) and will pay out on 6/1/2026, the ASD - there is no requirement to override the plan provision and provide interim interest (5/12 of 6%), correct?

That's true even if we had to average prior 5 years of variable ICRs, yes?

I see in the basic document the averaging requirement but nothing requiring an interim credit.

Thanks

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

View the full text of this job opportunity

A religious school that gets no funding from the diocese anymore is nonetheless still qualified as a QCCO. The school was established in the 1950s, and we suspect that it would have qualified prior to the adoption of the QCCO rules. The school has been told that they likely would not qualify as a QCCO if they were to seek it out now, although they are still listed as a church related entity in the master list of catholic organizations. 

The issue arose because the school wants to adopt a 457 plan. They are considering whether to "reclassify" itself as a non-QCCO.

ERISA and tax-qualification issues for their existing plan aside, have you seen a religious school undertake this process? Any thoughts?

PS: We realize that it can still adopt a 409A plan instead, but they would prefer that distributions be eligible for rollover treatment.