Effen

I don't see any problem amending the filing, especially since they took the deduction.

Stolen from a similar post on the COPPA Board, but I thought it was appropriate: The IRS has made me remove the Circular 230 notice it formerly made me put here. Under penalty of law you may not rely on, and no inference may be drawn from, the fact that I have deleted the Circular 230 notice the IRS used to make me put here but has now told me not to put here. Further explanation of this notice of non-notice is available at my usual hourly rate. Personally, I never put it on anything in the first place because I thought it was stupid. But that is just the rebel in me, I guess. It is nice to know the rest of the professional world has come around and realized it.

Just an FYI, the pass ratios for EA 1 are very low, typically only about 20% or less pass. This is generally thought to reflect the quality of the student taking the exam, not the exam itself. Most "strong" students are going the ASA/FSA route and don't take EA1. The "weaker" students take EA 1 and therefore the pass marks are very low. Normally less than 100 students take the test each year. The material generally doesn't change much from year to year. Best approach is just get a bunch of old exams and make sure you know how to do all the questions. All the old exams and answer keys are available on the Joint Board site. Really no reason to buy the newest study material and solutions for EA1. You would probably be just a well off if you could find someones used stuff from a year or so ago and save yourself some money. The text books you mentioned are great, but practicing on old exams is the best way to go. Also, save the 2 or 3 most current exams and practice on them in simulated exam conditions. This will give you good insights on where you need help.

Definitely.

I think they are both ok, but don't forget about the other optional forms of payment. Some might be higher under the old assumptions and would need to be protected. As always, you should bounce this off the attorney, who should have the final say.

If your plan contains many optional forms of payment you are permitted to remove some of the options, if they are redundant or very similar to other options, but you can't just remove all J&S options from the plan. Remember, the J&S option is one of the basic provisions of any pension plan. You can't just eliminate it because a vendor thinks it is burdensome.

I don't think so, but others may offer different opinions. I believe because a MP is considered a "pension" plan, 411(d)(6) applies to all rights and features. You could spin the MP piece back out, then terminate the MP plan. Also, why would you have hired a vendor that couldn't handle this. Isn't that why you do vendor searches?

1. I would say yes, but you could have other settlements that will give you more than 2 pieces. 2. I would say yes - each subsequent lump sum will trigger a re-measurement which may change the discount rate. I think the answer to both questions is yes, which is why most people only do the settlement accounting once, at the end of the year. Doing a re-measurement after each lump may be technically correct, but an administrative pain.

Was this a separate interest or a shared interest QDRO? Your description seems to imply shared interest, and if so, I would lean towards the AP being SOL. However, if it was a separate interest, could you argue the benefit was converted to an annuity on the APs life and therefore the death of the participant would have no impact since 100% of the AB is now completely assigned to the AP? Just something to think about.

Forgive my possibly stupid question, but what advantage do you gain by investing a tax deferred trust in off shore accounts? Why are you considering this?

Are you surprised by the attention, or lack of attention? I am still using PPA Funding Target for 90% of my single employer plans and I still have never had an auditor ask me one question.

Coming back to an older question - if my plan allows for annual annuity payments, am I ok using annual annuity factors to determine the 415 limit? If my plan does not permit annual payments, do I have to use monthly factors? I think the answer to both is "yes", but I am hoping for confirmation.

Lots of information out there on this board. Just do a few searches and you should find plenty of advice. Here is just one that you might find helpful. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/43751-defined-benefit-and-sep-ira/

I agree. All I want to see is the QDRO. If they send me additional information I make sure my transmittal letter explicitly states that I did not review any of it.

4) leave it alone and "fix" it next year. Why is this anything other than an assumption change? I don't really understand what you mean by you "hadn't accounted for 417(e) PVAB"? Under the PPA Regs the only thing you do in your funding target is use 417(e) mortality if the plan pays 417(e) lump sums, and that generally is not significantly different than the standard tables. I see plans all the time that we take over where the prior actuary was not recognizing the lump sum in the FT. I just "fix" it and move on. I don't think it rises to a level that I would tell the prior actuary that they had to restate a previous valuation. If you chose to redo the 2013 valuation, why not redo the 2012 also, or 2011, or 2010? I assume you weren't recognizing this in any past year, so why just fix 2013?

sorry, but I am even more confused: "The were separate interest. The 401K was split" - What was separate interest? The pension, or the 401(k), or both? "With both of us having having survivorships on each other pensions. If I pass before I commence she would recieve a porsion of my pension as would my sons. The same would go to me if she passes." This sort of makes sense, except the "as would my sons" part. If your ex is to be the beneficiary of your J&50% S annuity, I don't know how any would end up with your sons since you cannot have a contingent beneficiary. "So instead of taking a lump sum ( which are plan offers) I have to take a 50% annuity. The same goes for her." OK, this fits with your previous statement. "called fidelity, they told me she already recieved her portion of my pension, which I can see with my new numbers." Did she receive her portion of your pension (DB) or your 401(k)? If she really did receive her portion of your pension, I would agree that forcing you into a J&50 with her as beneficiary seems redundant. There may not be anything you can do about it, but I would agree with your frustration. Does she also receive a portion of your pension as a monthly annuity, or does she only receive a monthly benefit after your death?

So you chose to let your ex-wife's attorney draft your QDRO, you chose not to have your attorney review it, and then you reviewed it and chose to sign it, and you think someone else caused your "problem"? If you work at the same place, did you also seek a QDRO to attach her 401(k) and pension benefits? Anyway, back to trying to help...you keep saying your "she already received a portion of your benefits", but then you way, "we will not be able to get a lump sum". This has me confused. Is the "portion of your benefits" she received from the 401(k) or the pension plan? It would be common for her to receive her portion of your 401(k) balance immediately, but it would be rare for her to receive your portion of your pension benefit until you chose to retire (or she chose to commence her payments). Also, I don't understand how any of that would impact your ability to receive a lump sum. Do you know if your pension QDRO was a "separate interest" or a "shared interest" QDRO? Generally today most QDROs are "separate interest" which means the benefits are split into two pieces and each person makes their own benefit election on their piece that is independent from the other. A "shared interest" QDRO would be one in which the AP simply receives a portion of the participant's benefit, but the payments are contingent upon the participant's lifetime.

Although it may feel like you are being taken advantage of, what you said doesn't sound outrageous, although you seem to be talking about 2 different plans - a 401(k) and a pension plan. You said the 401(k) was split 50/50 and that has been distributed and a off the table. I assume you are talking about a pension plan when you refer to lump sums and QPSA benefits. Since she was entitled to the death benefit while you were married and she can retain that right after the divorce through the QDRO. In addition, she is entitled to 50% of your benefit earned during the marriage. You may not agree with the law, but that doesn't change it. QDROs are very complex and can split the pension in an infinite number of ways. Since you agreed to it and signed it there is probably nothing you can do now. Most judges don't accept "I didn't know what I signed" as a valid reason to re-open the QDRO. Besides, the terms you described sound fairly reasonable.

You are asking the right questions, but the answer is in the plan document. What is the death benefit under the plan? Is it payable to non spousal beneficiary? Did the plan require the participant to make an election of their form of payment at the MRD or did the plan just pay the accrued benefit with no election. My personal opinion is that no election is necessary for the payment of RMDs, however many argue that it is. Either way, your plan document should define the benefit and when it is paid. You might need to get the actuary involved to determine the value of the death benefit, if any.

I would not assume there is a 100% probability the IRS adopts this table, and certainly not before 2017. Comment letters are due in a few weeks and I know several organizations are raising some concerns about the data quality used to produce it. Also, many will lobby the IRS not to use a 2D table, especially for small plans. It will be interesting to see what kinds of comments they receive. I would not assume the IRS will just use it without other considerations.

Seems ok to me, assuming they are all family member and HCEs. Generally the allocation of excess assets is considered to be a plan amendment that must satisfy the non discrimination rules. However, if they are all HCE's, then you don't need to worry about it. As long as the contribution is deductible, and the distributions are less than the 415 limit, I think you are ok.

You did "earn it", you earned it as a benefit payable as an annuity. You did not earn it as a lump sum because the plan does not offer that benefit. Yes, the Funding Target should include the assumption that a benefit is payable as a lump sum, however, it is generally not a problem for valuation software to assume a certain percentage elect a lump sum without the value of the subsidy, and a different percentage will elect an annuity, which would include the subsidy. Sure the plan can pay the lump sum value of the subsidy, but that extra payment comes at a price of a lower overall benefit, or a higher employer contribution. The reality is the plan benefits are set by how much the employer/employee wants to contribute. If the plan pays out higher lump sums, it just means someone else gets less somewhere else.

2 Cents - I generally disagree with your position, I don't see any problem in plan's not including the value of the early retirement subsidies in the lump sum values. If I am providing you with an incentive to retire, why should I be forced to pay you that value up front in one lump sum. Maybe the value of the incentive is not worth as much as you thought, because you can't get it in a lump sum, but that should be part of the analysis, not forced upon the employer to pay. If you want the subsidy, take the annuity, if you don't, take the lump sum. Why is that "wrong"? I think the relative value requirements do a nice job explaining the value of the options so participants can make informed decisions. However, I also think the rules are often misinterpreted by practitioners, or simply ignored, which is a problem with our profession and not the regulation. If practitioners provide proper disclosures, participants can make informed decisions.

Actually, it is fairly common in the real retirement world for plans to have a one year wait, but to credit accruals from date of hire. Nothing wrong with it, in fact I would expect it is more common than accruing benefits based on participation. Certainly outside of the small plan world, it is more common. You are not a participant until you satisfy eligibility. Once you are a participant, you are instantly entitled to a benefit, if you are vested.

Keep in mind that whatever you do needs to be specified in the plan document. If the lump sum cannot be paid because of the 110% rule, and the plan is silent about optional forms of payment when this occurs, then the lump sum simply cannot be paid and he need to elect some other form of payment that is available. Discussing these other options is interesting, but if they aren't in your plan document, they aren't really options you can use.