QDROphile

Golfing’s “What if” is exactly the optimal path, and if I were the Plan Administrator, I would even suggest as much in order to make life easier for the plan. It is really the job of the former spouse’s lawyer to do this, but most domestic relations lawyers do not understand procedural niceties for QDROs even if they can manage to draft a qualifying order that achieves the intent of the parties.

And that's the truth. Pfffthp!

The appropriate fiduciary has a duty to make various determinations in this matter and cannot simply punt to interpleader.

Depends on what the pre-death divorce decree (or its equivalent under applicable state law) says about the plan benefits. The decree is a DRO and does not have to be qualified, but it must say something about awarding an interest under the plan to the former spouse. Qualification defects can be cured by a post-death order. The outcome also depends on when the plan receives a DRO and what the QDRO procedures say about what is required before the plan takes any extraordinary action relative to receipt of a DRO.

I agree with jpod.

How do A and B constitute a controlled group? How does "someone purchased A" affect the factors that determine the relationship, or not?

It used to be that one could hire Judy Diamond to look up DOL filings. But some people believe that everything should be free.

Treas. Reg. section 401(a)(9)-8, Q&A-6

Most likely the only option is to provide for the split of the stream of annuity payments. There are several issues involved in doing that, depending on what the plan will tolerate, but there is a conventional way to do it. Since the annuity payment schedule is set, and ends at his death, the division is constrained by his life (and not his life expectancy.

This is part of your divorce property division. If you had a lawyer assisting you, seek advice about this piece. Seek advice anyway. Retirement benefits are often one of a households biggest assets and division of them can be confusing.

The proposed terms of the order will be presented to the domestic relations court. You can consent to its adoption (sign) or you can object and the court will decide on the terms that it approves. Ultimately it is the court's order.

And if it is a multiple employer plan, do not overlook securities law compliance.

Are you an adviser or a scrivener?

How about the idea is confused and misguided thinking? If the employer does not want to make the benefits of loans available, then don't rather than undercut the ability of the individual participants to make their own best plans with the resources they have available to them. We might all agree that plan loans are often not the best alternative for an individual, all things considered, but I cannot accept that imposition of the employer's presumptions produces the best outcome for every participant. In fact, I would argue that in many, if not most, cases, continuing elective deferrals rather than prepaying plan loans is a better financial move. Even if the objective arguments are not persuasive, it is just offensive to have the employer presume to manage someone else's personal business at such a detailed level. Is the plan designed to require the participants to direct investment of their accounts? If so, how the employer reconcile that? We all know that employees generally do not make optimal investment decisions.

It all depends on the terms of the order, but it is extremely unlikely that anything about her financial situation or events that occur after start of pension benefit payments (other than her death or perhaps the death of your husband) would affect her benefit or the payments she is receiving. The QDRO is a property division. She got her interest in the pension at the time of divorce. Any post-divorce developments, such as her remarriage or you husband's remarriage or post-divorce financial fortunes, should not change what she got as a property settlement in the divorce.

The lawyer can pound sand. The plan does what it does. This will be an opportunity to see if the lawyer can figure out how to file a claim for benefits.

The loan can be secured by an assignment of pay at the time of loan initiation. The security arrangement operates apart from the statutes concerning payroll deduction. Most plans are either unaware or unwilling to take the administrative steps to effect the arrangement. That leaves them to deal with the payroll deduction statutes. Those statutes do not uniformly allow employees unfettered ability to cancel payroll deduction - they vary.

And I suppose that the new employer is not really interested in finding out what would be necessary to make it work. It does not involve adopting a loan program.

Somebody should ask the new employer to think about delivery of the message to the new employees that they are so unimportant that the new employer was unwilling to make a reasonable accommodation to avoid financial hardship for them.

What is the impediment to identifying them, and only them, for one of the solutions you specified? HCEs? The program for the new employer would simply be a payment program, which would not be very burdensome.

Can a final Form 5500 be filed if the plan has not been terminated?

Well, pi is irrational and transcendental; that fits the Old Testament portrayal of God in some circles.

And unfortunately, the day another great physics figure died.

The timing and complexity of Larry Star's posts cause me to retract my reference to them. I still think CJ Allen's post about what data the plan should have to provide deserves a lot of consideration, but I agree with Larry Starr that the plan has no obligation to perform extraordinary data manipulation and calculation to determine an alternate payee's benefit in accordance with a formula in the order. The plan should perform simple math on data the plan has or should have in accordance with the order. Example: The plan should compute 50 percent of the December 31, 2015 participant balance if instructed by the order, but does not have to compute 50 percent of the balance as of November 3, 2014 and the earnings thereon through January 15, 2018.

A plan will probably get away with Larry Starr's position, but I think CJ Allen's position deserves a lot of consideration. However, any petition to the drafter to come up with a practical workaround the formal requirement should be informal.