david rigby

DownTown for a Pint?

You want one class of participants to subsidize other classes?

IMHO, the second response above from QDROphile is spot-on. You do have something to disqualify the DRO: the reference to 2003. It's not the Plan's job to find a way to make the DRO fit the plan; rather, the DRO parties must find a way to make the DRO fit the plan

Data as of 28-MAR-13 (Thursday) Market closed on Friday March 29. Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.90 3.90 Aa 3.93 3.96 3.95 A 4.17 4.23 4.20 Baa 4.68 4.98 4.83 Avg 4.26 4.27 4.27 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.48 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.23 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.63

Usually it has something to do with the employer's convenience. With a previous employer, we got a company-provided lunch. It was tax-free from IRS perspective but was taxed at $1 per day for FICA purposes.

It's also possible your employer never gave this provision much thought. You might ask them to consider amending the plan to permit such distributions on or after normal retirment age. It can't hurt to ask.

... assuming the letter will answer the question, "why is it incorrect?"

For additional discussion, search the entire forum: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/forum/89-qualified-domestic-relations-orders-qdros/ using a search word such as "expense".

Does the language refer to plan expenses, "... to the extent not paid by the plan sponsor..."?

As far as I can tell, there are no regulations under ERISA sec. 4021. In 4021©(2)(B), note the phrase "... includes, but is not limited to..." Also, some of the listed professions do not require licensing, certification, etc. Thus, on its face, the statutory language does not exclude the situation proposed in the OP.

Will a retitle require the RMD to reflect beneficiary age? (I don't know, just asking. More to the point, the beneficiary should find out before requesting the change, but the PA is not his legal counsel.)

You may want to review the 411d6 reg yourself, but my recollection is that no 411d6 protection applies to any disability benefit.

What do you mean "RMD from the ABC company"? RMD comes from the plan. Is the 5% owner a participant in the plan?

"Commissions"? I hope this is just a poor choice or words.

Yikes! Since you cannot possibly present all the facts here, you should not trust any advice on your question from this Message Board, except this: Talk to your legal counsel.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/44045-too-late-for-a-short-plan-year/

This is a form of "phishing". Every recordkeeper should be aware of the dangers and include safeguards. Discuss those safeguards with the plan sponsor.

It happens often.

Is there value in maximizing one's rate of interest?

Should he have his head examined?

Might this be a red flag relating to the ability of the new recordkeeper?

Entire auditor report.

"Force-out"? Are these terminated participants? "...give some large-balance terminees an early head's up..." Discriminatory? Why would you communicate "advice" to one group of participants and not to all?

IMHO, this will not work. The 411d6 protection will apply to the accrued benefit at the date of change (frozen in this case), including the "old" definition of AE. I think this is pretty similar to the Supreme Court decision commonly referred to as "Heinz". However, since I have advocated simpler/lower late retirement AE for years, I would love to be proven wrong.

Original ERISA section 412 states "...not less than 10 per centum of the amount of funds handled." Committee reports notes that this "...provision is generally identical to present section 13 of the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act..." Thus, while it may be an arbitrary percent, it was a continuation of a previous standard.