david rigby

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.

Rethink whether the calculation of deductible limit is subject to modification?

The JBEA renewal page has been updated for the current renewal cycle.

I'm not aware of any statutory change in sec. 209 or IRC 6057. If you are aware of a change, please post.

Any help here? http://benefitslink.com/modperl/qa.cgi?db=qa_who_is_employer

It's does not appear to meet the definition of QJSA in 1.401(a)-11(b)(2). Could the described form be an option, rather than a default definition of QJSA?

Could B purchase Dad's business? If so, that (probably) makes B the new sponsor. Get legal advice of attorney with ERISA experience.

Is this a prohibited transaction? ERISA sec. 406(a)

Winter 2010 edition of the Enrolled Actuaries Report. http://www.actuary.org/ear/

See SFAS No. 87. Also relevant may be Nos. 88, 106, 132, 158. Most importantly, generally accepted accounting principles reflect that a financial statement is meaningful only at the end of an accounting period (quarter, year, etc.)

This seems suspiciously like the logic used by the average bureaucrat.

Just a hunch: the $100 "quote" was the attorney's wish, not a real experience. While it's not appropriate to discuss fees here, the $100 value seems too low, by a lot. That would not cover the actuary's time/effort/due diligence before providing a PV calc.

The Renewal page on the JBEA website (as of today, still reflects discussion of the 2008 renewal) contains this generic statement: http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/actuaries/index.html

So far, 5.75% to 6.0%.

Yes it is a premium.

Line 8d reads "(including direct rollovers and insurance premiums to provide benefits)". Does this answer your question?

Look at the Form 10 instructions (page 12) or the Form 10-Advance instructions (page 8).

Since detailed legal advice from this website is worth just what you pay for it, you probably need advice from an attorney who is well-versed in QDRO's (if the attorney is not well-versed, keep looking). Be aware that a QDRO cannot require a plan to pay benefits in a form not already authorized by the plan. For example, if a plan only pays monthly benefits, a QDRO cannot require a plan to pay a lump sum.

Data as of 31-DEC-10 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.88 4.88 Aa 5.23 5.07 5.15 A 5.45 5.35 5.40 Baa 5.93 6.02 5.98 Avg 5.54 5.33 5.44 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.32 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.64 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.65

Isn't Mom in the DB plan anyway, by virtue of being an employee? Yes, she will have zero additional accrual, but she is a participant?

I saw no such Q&A in the 2010 Gray Book.

Your tax dollars at work.

Is this a personnel policy?