Effen

Thank you for the correction.

Don't over think it. Plan cannot exist without a sponsor (although sometimes they do). Part of winding down the business is terminating the plan. If a retiree remains, the plan will need to purchase an annuity before it can terminate. Yes, sometimes sponsors remain in existence with no employees simply to maintain the plan, but it generally isn't the best way to proceed. What happens if/when the sole owner of the sponsor dies? What if the plan requires a contribution at some point in the future - where does the money come from? If the plan is overfunded, the plan document will define what to do with the excess assets. They either revert to the company (big excise tax), or they will be reallocated to existing participants. If they are reallocated, that allocation must be non-discriminatory. They can also be transferred to a successor plan, but since the sponsor has no employees, that isn't a viable option.

Do male/male and female/female tables exist that we can use? Yes - the actuary should be able to produce those for you. Or is it okay to use the opposite-sex tables even for same-sex couples? Non-ERISA - you can do what you want. ERISA - Yes, as long as the table you use is not based on the gender of the participant. IOW, you can treat all participants as "male" and all beneficiaries as "female". Or you can treat them all as male, or all as female, or treat them all as 75% male and 25% female, but you can't specifically use male mortality for males and female mortality for females when determining the amount of their benefit. If we do the later, are there any special considerations (i.e. do we need to notify the parties or obtain consent)? I don't know of any special notices that are required, however an ERISA plan is required to provide the relative value of each of the optional forms of payment and disclose the assumptions used for that purpose.

Since the benefit was in pay status at the time the plan terminated and no changes can be made to the form of payment or the covered participants. However, the plan was apparently offering a lump sums to retirees, which creates a new Annuity Starting Date and a new opportunity to change to a different optional form. Since this participant had a QDRO in place, it sounds like the Plan Administrator (and hopefully the plan document) excluded those with QDROs from the lump sum offer. Nothing wrong with any of that in my opinion. Husband gets a new QDRO that changes things, PA rejects it because you cant change things once they are in payment status. Nothing wrong with that. In short, I have no issues with what the PA did. If you want to confirm, as to see a copy of the amendment terminating the plan and see if those with QDROs were excluded from the lump sum option. 1) The QDRO can require the Participant to select a specific option. 2) PA did nothing wrong based on what you described 3) Husband could try to argue with the insurance company (as Peter said), but I wouldn't expect them to change anything either.

Many retirement plans offer unreduced benefits upon disability - meaning no early retirement reduction. Sometimes they are even supplemented for a period. If the participant recovers, the disability payments stop (no one ever does). If the participant dies, the disability benefit stops and the normal death benefit is paid to the beneficiary. Once they participant hits NRA, the disability payments stop and the participant elects a retirement benefit. The disability benefit is completely separate from the retirement benefit and is therefore considered to be "ancillary". This benefit can be removed without violating 411(d)(6). Other plans may provide a similar unreduced benefit, but the participant chooses a form of lifetime payment at the time of disability. Not sure what happens if the participant recovers, but the participant in essence "retires" at their disability date. In my experience this type of provision is very rare. I believe this benefit would possibly be subject to 411(d)(6) since it is really a retirement benefit. The benefits aren't always unreduced, but they are usually heavily subsidized. These types of features are most common in hourly or bargained plans. Hope that helps.

Please DO NOT provide the exact name of your plan. However, as fsminc stated, it would be important to confirm if it is a qualified, or a non-qualified, plan. It would be helpful if you could provide the name, but leave out the sponsor's name.

Closing this due to double posting. Probably s/b kept in this board but someone already replied in Defined Benefit Board. See thread of same name in Defined Benefit Board integrated-pension-plan-and-divorce on the defined benefit board

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.