Effen

I have seen them. They do exist. If you are worried about fluctuating compensation, consider basing the cash balance allocation on a bonus and not the total compensation. The entity must control the amount of the bonus, so they need Board justification to pay the bonus, and the participant can't control the amount, but often the Board and the participant are the same individual who is wearing two different hats. Yes, it can be problematic, but it does solve the problem.

Thank you. Getting specific, if the letter says, "We intend to honor the court's former spouse's survivor annuity award. The current former spouses monthly benefit payable is $X.", then the AP can expect to receive $X if the participant predeceases, even though X is greater than the amount they are currently receiving. They should not expect that X would be adjusted in any way. Is that correct? That was the only mention about the FSSA in the letter from OPM. It was a 2 sentence paragraph. I didn't see anything in the COAP/QDRO about it.

Coming back to this, we did find a letter from the Office of Personnel Management that talks about the marital share and the amount of the "former spouse's retirement benefit". That part is all good and matches what is actually being paid. However, the next sentence says, "We intend to honor the court's former spouse's survivor annuity award. The current former spouses monthly benefit payable is $X." The strange thing (from my perspective) is X does not equal the former spouse's gross annuity or the portion being paid to the former spouse. It is smaller than the gross benefit, but more than 2 times larger than the AP's portion. Does this mean that if the former spouse predeceases the AP, that the AP's benefit will increase? Or, would the same coverture fraction be applied to the "former spouse's survivor annuity award"? What is a "former spouse's survivor annuity" and how is it different than the "retirement benefit"?

What are the other options? You could do a consolidated notice, but it would need to disclose the individual impacts, which would probably require them to disclose that everyone has different benefits. How did you handle the SPD?

Roger that!

We have had luck using Midland for small cash balance accounts. You can contact them directly (on behalf of the plan administrator) or use a broker. If you prefer a broker, PM me and I will supply contact information.

I appreciate what you are saying, but this one uses the words "Domestic Relations Order", and "This Order is intended to meet the requirements of a qualified domestic relations order ...". I don't think any of that really matters since the AP is receiving payments, so they have honored it, regardless of what is was called. I will suggest the AP contact the PA and confirm the death benefit payable to the AP, if any. Thanks for your responses.

I did find this in the Q/A's under the CRRS site" "A married federal employee who retires under either CSRS or FERS automatically receives a joint and survivor annuity unless both the employee and the spouse decline it in writing, in which case the worker will receive a single-life annuity" Would that mean that unless the AP signed off on a SLA, that J&S coverage should be in effect?

Anyone work with Civil Service Retirement System (Postal worker)? I am looking at a QDRO for a friend and wondering how something might be interpreted. This is an older QDRO (2003) and is very short. It splits the benefit according to the Majauskas formula, then is says, "The alternate payee shall be treated as a surviving spouse for the purposes of a joint and survivor annuity and pre-retirement survivor annuity purposes". Thats about it - it is only 4 paragraphs long. The participant has retired and the AP is getting benefits, but the question is, what happens if the participant dies. There was nothing in the QDRO about required form of payment, but I am wondering if the Normal Form in the Civil Service Plan is a J&S and therefore, saying that that the AP is treated as the spouse for the J&S annuity means they will continue to receive a survivor's portion if the participant predeceases the AP. Any thoughts? I assume the only way to know for sure would be to ask the PA, but I wondered if anyone had any thoughts before we did that.

Sorry, I posted my response before I saw your follow-up, but yes, I agree the 3,800/mo would be acceptable EOY1

Lets ignore averages and COLAs and assume the comp limit is $300,000 and the $ limit at 65 is 245,000. Therefore, the $ limit at 74 is around $494,000. Also assume the employees has 10 YOS, but 0 YOP at BOY. Max DB accrual at EOY 1 = 49,500 (min 300000/10*10, 495,000/10) EOY 6 = 297,000 (min 300000/10*10, 495000/10*6) EOY 7 = 300000 EOY 8 = 300000 At least I think this is right. Does anyone think I would need to limit Yr1 accrual to 30,000?

The IRS takes the position that the actuarially increased $ limit for post 65 retirements cannot exceed the 401(a)(17) maximum compensation. Therefore, for 2023, the maximum DB dollar limit is effectively capped at $330,000 for ages > 68 or so. This wasn't always true, but recent (10+ years) IRS guidance has followed this thinking. That isn't exactly what you were asking, but it might be what you are thinking about. I am not sure if you can use a higher $ limit (based on AE), as long as the end result isn't higher than the comp limit / YOS. Hopefully someone else will confirm that.

You have it right. The percentage is being indexed for COLA. No, it doesn't make any sense, but that is how Congress did it. It is also more maddening that the PBGC continues to tell Congress they don't need the money and they are currently showing large surpluses, but because the premiums are considered "general revenue", and can be counted against general spending, Congress won't reduce them.

Insane! Tell all your sponsors to write their Congressman about this. $748/participant max cap. Borrow to fund getting more and more economically sound.

OK, that makes more sense, but unfortunately, I don't know the answer to your question. Hopefully someone on the board has a better response.

I don't understand the question? What kind of "policy change" would require a participant to return pension payments? Are you talking about a qualified pension plan or some sort of non-qualified insurance product? Sometimes errors are made and excess pension payments need to be returned, but I don't understand the reference to a "policy change"?

If you are an ASPPA member, try the ACOPPA Board. You might find someone over there that is willing to engage in the discussion.

These are the two biggest obstacles with lower interest rates. If you have NHCEs in the group, make sure you are looking at the impact before you go forward.

Call the ABCD and see if they can provide guidance. This is a serious suggestion. They might be able to provide guidance and/or comfort. In the end, you need to do whatever you think is right.

First - I am not here, and I never said this: Is the sponsor going to pay you for all your hard work? Are they going to appreciate what you are trying to do for them? Are you going to report prior actuary to ABCD for not providing the AFTAPs? Who is actually impacted by all of this crap? Don't make their problems your problems. Resign before you get involved. Easy answer is to resign, but someone still needs to do the work, so consider this: Ask the sponsor to waive all PFB and COBs. Ask them to specifically tell you not to review any work prior to the current valuation. You should confirm to them in writing that you are not responsible for anything prior to current valuation date. Certify current AFTAP. Prepare the current valuation, Go and sin no more.

What "requirement" are you referring to? Benefit accruals? Assuming this is a calendar year plan and you are terminating on July 31st, and assuming your plan requires a 1000 hours to accrue a benefit, then yes, the 1000 hour requirement is still relevant. Termination date isn't really relevant, but the freeze date is. If accruals were frozen before anyone earned 1000 hours, then no accrual for 2022. If your question was about minimum funding requirements, then it depends on if it is a beginning of year valuation, or an end of year valuation, and it depends on your hours assumption used in the valuation. There is room for creativity, but you just can't ignore it.

I believe another factor is if your document has deemed cash out language in it. That is that anyone who terminates with 0% vesting is deemed to be cashed out. Therefore, if you have paid anyone who was partially vested, and anyone who was not vested is deemed to be paid out, you can probably get away with a 1-year look back. Let the ERISA attorney and the sponsor make the decision.

What does the plan document say? Does it offer J&S benefits to non-married participants? How does it define a "spouse". Not sure, but I think if they were married within a year of the commencement date, she may still be considered to be a spouse. Is the "would-be surviving spouse" the same person as the ex-spouse? If the election was invalid, why do you think the plan would not be obligated to pay out the difference between the SLA and the QJSA?

First, I have to say that I really miss "blinky". One of the great contributors to this board. Second, if the EIN is still the same, then all they did was change the name of the corporation, right? So, no issue with effective date since corp already existed? Of course they are "new plans", not sure of the question? That said, it is not a new sponsor, so 415 limits all need to recognize prior distributions from terminated plan. Not sure what "EOB" means in your post? Not really sure of your question? Third, are these DB plans? If so, how do you comply with 401(a)(26) with 3 separate owner only plans? If it is a DC plan, why do you need separate plans?

I think it is still "required", but I don't know anyone who actually does that any more. We just e-sign the pdf and haven't had any issues. I have heard that some people print it, sign it, scan it, shred it. Seems like a lot of wasted effort and resources just to comply with arcane rule. I can't imagine the IRS would ever make a big deal about this in today's world.