Effen

You should consider asking the ABCD for guidance.

Couple things immediately jump to mind. 1) This is a cash balance plan, not a defined contribution plan. You can't just split the assets and pay the AP. I don't see many cash balance QDROa, but I don't think you can just pay the AP unless the participant is otherwise eligible for early retirement. You could establish an account for the AP inside the plan, but I don't think you can "pay" them until the participant is entitled to payment either by termination or becoming eligible for early retirement. I might be wrong about this, but I have never seen it in practice. 2) Your mixing up thoughts. The QDRO should have absolutely nothing to do with any benefits the AP earned in the plan. Any benefits earn by the AP are 100% hers, unless the participant has a QDRO attaching her benefits. 3) Your letter should be addressed to the PA, but if you copy one of the attorneys, you should copy both the participant's and the AP's attorney. 4) I guess this all is a long way of asking - does it matter what the QDRO says if the attorneys, participant, and AP all agree with the payments? A QDRO is really like a plan amendment. If you rephrased your question I think you have your answer. "Does it matter what the document says?"

Was the $ amount specified in the QDRO or just the % of the account balance? If the $ amount was specified, I say, everything is fine. However, if the % was specified in the QDRO, and you don't agree with the payment amount, then you should communicate your concerns to the Plan Administrator. If you are acting as the Plan Administrator, you should consider sending both attorneys a letter expressing your concerns. If neither responds, then you have done your duty. The attorney represents the individual and is trying to get the most of their client. You represent all plan participants, include the AP. Is it possible the valuation date used in the QDRO is not the same valuation date you used? If the plan is still accruing benefits, maybe additional benefits earned after a certain date were not allocated to the AP?

I have seen QDROs that allocate 100% of the marital portion to the AP. I don't believe there is any limit, assuming both sides agree and it doesn't result in any additional net benefits.

I am fine with whatever the group thinks is best. I haven't logged in or out of BenefitsLink in years so I actually have no idea what my password is or which of my email accounts this is associated with, but I am sure we can figure it out.

https://www.irs.gov/irb/2020-51_IRB#NOT-2020-85 2022 mortality table for 417(e) was released in 2020, so "no", it won't show any impact for COVID. Long term, that is still being studied. You might find this piece helpful. https://www.clubvita.us/assets/images/general/clubvita_US_scenariospaper_covid19_f2_01.pdf There are also pieces published by the CCA and the Academy. Should be able to find them with a Google search.

I found the Gray Book Question that triggered it for me. 2009 Q/A 39

I agree with CB that you should contact the ABCD. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like he will be cooperative with them either. That said, the plan sponsor is the primary source of participant history. I recognize it is much easier to get this from the prior actuary, but the sponsor should have records of the information they provided. You can get the plan document from the attorney or the sponsor. There is really very little the actuary has that you can't obtain from other sources. Has the prior actuary provided the signed SB for the last valuation they prepared? That would be the one item I would either confirm they will provide, or you will need to inform the sponsor that you will need to redo the most recent valuation. With ARPA's passage - you might just want to do that anyway.

Just Google 4204 sale and you will see a lot of articles. My limited experience is they can be very tricky to properly maneuver and require experienced legal counsel. The liability that is created by an improper sale can be disastrous.

I thought your first post was clear. I am closing this thread to avoid double posting.

On the surface, it was an employer contribution. As I saw on another question - if it is not an employer contribution, what was it? If there was nothing specifically stated in the agreement when they made the deposit, I don't know why they would ignore it. The employer can appeal and ask the Trustees to reconsider. If they can demonstrate that they have any documentation that they were told it would not be considered for withdrawal purposes, then they might have an argument. Unfortunately, they should have thought about this before they made a large payment.

Basil - multiemployers are a different animal. No simple answer to that question. You will need to talk with Fund actuaries/attorney.

I can't address how it might impact the qualified status of a volume submitter plan document, but you would be legally permitted to exclude any HCEs that you want. You will need to contact the document provider and ask if this type of adjustment impacts the determination letter.

I am sure others will chime in, but you seem like you did what you needed to do, but you will likely need an US based attorney to represent you. Does Grumman still exist? Just because Fidelity is acting as plan administrator doesn't absolve Grumman from responsibility. It appears you did everything that was required, but Fidelity just doesn't have the records. You should ask Fidelity for a copy of Grumman's QDRO policy. Typically even the hint of a QDRO is enough to cause the PA to stop any payments that might be allocated to you. IOW, if the benefit is in pay status - your information to Fidelity should cause them to at least escrow "your" portion going forward until things are resolved. Also, if the participant commenced retirement payments, he was likely legally obligated to inform Fidelity/Grumman that a QDRO existed. If he didn't, you will need to sue him for your portion of the value of the payments he received. The participant might also be guilty of fraud. If payments have not commenced, and regarding future payments if they have, you should be in a good spot, but you will need to continue to work with Fidelity and/or go to Grumman directly. They may just kick you back to Fidelity, but the squeaky wheel gets attention.

What state?

I agree with Mike. Many plans that offer highly subsidized early retirement benefits only offer them to those participants who go directly from active to retired status. IOW, in order to receive the subsidy, you must be eligible to retire at the time you separate from service. If you terminate prior to being eligible to receive a retirement benefit, often a different set of early retirement reductions would apply. You might want to re-check the document to make sure the unreduced early applies to all terminated participants. Either way, you do not need to provide an early retirement subsidy to a participant who didn't make a timely request. I guess that assumes they received an SPD and the benefit was clearly defined in the SPD, IOW, if they were never notified the benefit exists, the DOL may take an interest.

Not disagreeing with Mike, but 8/12 would definitely NOT be ok. The plan didn't exist on 8/12/20 since it was terminated on 5/31/20. I think your val date would be 5/31.

I can only speak for myself, but the issue became more important after an IRS response to a graybook question. I don't recall the year, but think it was early 2010s? IRS has subsequently echoed same position, which is, if you don't issue an SOBN, you need to provide BOTH the age/service, plus the actuarial increase. In your example, your procedures are not in compliance with the document. Your are not following plan provisions by not supplying a SOBN to people working beyond NRD. You must provide the rollup to avoid a 411(d)(6) cut back on the existing AB, and the IRS would argue that you need to provide the additional accrual because you never suspended the benefit. Current IRS position is that your plan must specifically include "greater of the two" language in order to offset the accrual by the rollup. Without that explicit language, you need to give both. I think some of this was codified in the first sets of 417(e) regulations.

Best place to start is to ask your accountant and/or attorney for recommendations. Like most things in life, you get what you pay for. It might be help to scan some of the other threads on this board to gain an understanding of the potential issues. You should be able to find someone willing to do the work for < 2K for a solo db. Location doesn't really matter, but if you tell us what city you are near, someone will likely PM you.

Your question is probably beyond the scope of this board. I suggest you contact a local tax advisor.

Jinx

1) Maybe. Review the rules for Qualified Replacement Plan. They can reduce the excise tax on whatever they can allocate within 7 years. They might be able to use up the entire $500K of excess. Make sure they understand it counts as an annual addition. IOW, if they allocate $58K of the excess assets each year, there is no room for any employer contributions. Also, be aware of earnings on the excess assets they transferred also need to be allocated, so most people invest conservatively. 2) Sure, they can start a new one tomorrow. They won't be able to put any money into it, but they can have one. You only get one 415 limit per employer. If they hit the 415 limit in the DB, they are likely done. If COLAs increase the 415 limit in the future, it might make sense in a few years, but not as likely to happen with the current Congress. If they worked for a new employer (less than 50% ownership) they might be able to fund a different 415 limit.

? There are no two sides on a dilemma. This is all pretty black and white. You just need to do some research and figure out which is correct. Don't take on risk for a client just because they are unwillingly to pay for something outside your area of expertise.

I meant you need to talk to the plan's actuary and ERISA counsel and work through these issues. I believe if the plan permits the beneficiary to take a lump sum in leu of monthly payments (you need to work with ERISA counsel to ensure this is permitted), the beneficiary cannot rollover the MRD amount applicable for the year of payment. These rules are tricky for DB plans so you will need to read the regs. Yes, the beneficiary can rollover a lump sum, part of it will not be eligible for rollover due to MRDs. Whose MRDs govern after the rollover I am not sure.