david rigby

If you have specific questions, this might be helpful: http://www.labor.ny.gov/home

Maybe Tonto should have spent some time learnin' TLR to speak Tonto's native language.

No disrespect intended, Tom. For me, the advice, "hire an actuary", just makes sense.

I agree with SoCal. No need to make it difficult. BTW, the 2009 5500EZ was posted on the IRS website in May 2010, so you'll probably have to wait another 4 months.

IMHO, you need approval. The logic works like this: 1. If you read reg. 1.430(g)-1©(i), approval needed. 2. If you read Rev. Proc. 2000-40, sec. 3.10, approval not needed. 3. But the IRS has stated this about RP 2000-40:

See definition of "standard mortality table" in reg. 1.401(a)(4)-12. Sorry, I don't have a list of any possible updates since the reg was issued. Note the phrase at the end of the paragraph, referring to the 417(e)(3) table. You may need to refer to IRS Notice 2008-85 for the current table. A more generic answer to the question is, "hire an actuary with experience in cross-testing."

I believe that restrictions are removed only when a new AFTAP certification is issued. You might want to review the reg. to check my memory.

Society of Actuaries Table Manager might help: http://xtbml.soa.org:8080/xtbml/jsp/index.jsp

A few similar discussion threads. Here is one of them: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=47508 The Search feature may help you find others. Bottom line: what the recipient does with the money after receipt is of no consequence to the plan, but most plans will not contain any provision that permits the participant to "waive" or "suspend" the monthly payment.

IRC 414(p) does not contain "divorce" or "separated". As such, neither is required for a DRO to be considered as a QDRO. QDROphile's advice is on target: look to the plan's provisions and QDRO procedures.

Just my opinion: no, it sounds more like an expense of the company rather than the plan.

This word might cause one to question the exact nature of the transaction. Perhaps a close inspection of the board resolution or other document(s) that caused this transaction?

Can't be both a merger and a termination. Your ERISA attorney will help determine which is correct.

Just an opinion, but it seems that a back-up would be important.

http://ssdi.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ Not perfect; may not be updated quickly, but it might help, especially if you click "Advanced".

In your experience, has this been successful?

Scanned? If that is the reasoning, then why not submit a PDF?

Andy is correct. This is a good question, with no help from the instructions. If you get an answer from the EFAST2 Help Line 1.866.GO-EFAST (1.866.463.3278), please tell us.

Does it matter?

I read the original Q a bit differently. If you want to change the deduction for 2009, that sounds like amending the tax filing. If permitted (see tax advisor), then the 300K can be divided as desired: 250K deducted on the amended tax filing and 50K as part of the 2010 plan year contribution. The SB and Schedule H/I would show 250K as the 2009 contribution. I think you have to do all these steps, or none.

BTW, it is the plan administrator's review to determine if a DRO meets the requirements to become "qualified". To this end, it may be advisable to submit a draft to the plan administrator, before presentation to the court.

First problem?

Other information you need: - technically, you are submitting a DRO (or perhaps a draft DRO). It is the plan administrator's review that determines if it meets the requirements to become "qualified". - what kind of plan is this? If a DB plan, the DRO might need additional information for the plan administrator to review. For example, a DRO cannot require a plan to pay a form of payment not already permissible under the plan, nor can it require the plan to pay more (measured by standard actuarial techniques) to you and your ex (in total) than would otherwise be payable. - not necessarily complete information, you may wish to review DOL comments about QDRO's: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_qdro.html http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/qdros.html

IMHO, judgment call. Remember that the Citigroup curve differs from the IRS curve in two primary respects: - the IRS curve goes to 100 years, while the Citi curve goes to 30 years, - the IRS curve is based on bond rates in the top 3 categories, while the Citi curve is based on bond rates in the top 2 categories (corrections welcome if my summary is not valid.)

That is a decision for the plan sponsor.