david rigby

Multiple-employer plan?

Difficult to know, but my guess is that the $325 benefit due to you is based on the presumption that he actually survived to retirement age. Since he did not, that means the plan's death benefit provisions apply, and the $325 is no longer relevant. The QDRO statement that you are to be treated as the "surviving spouse" means the plan's default death benefit will treat you as if you had not been divorced. Why is this important? Some plans (don't know about your husband's plan) define a pre-retirement default death benefit as payable only to a surviving spouse; if there is no spouse, there is no death benefit. Per your own phrasing, this QDRO statement is relevant "in regards to the pre-retirement benefit"; thus, it identifies you a surviving spouse and does not create any other rights for you. You might get a different benefit if you provide a copy of the divorce decree, but be warned that many plan administrators will only act on a QDRO. If there is any reason to believe they do not yet have that, send a copy; if they already have it, no need for a second copy. Based on your earlier comments, it appears the plan's pre-retirement death benefit definitions are the only relevant portion of the plan to define your benefit. By all means, be sure your attorney reviews your QDRO and all correspondence from the plan. I'm not qualified to give legal advice.

Depends on the actual definition. Many documents include all deferrals in the definition of comp, whether from 401k, 403b, 125, 132, etc.

Data as of 30-NOV-10 (Tuesday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.79 4.79 Aa 5.03 4.93 4.98 A 5.28 5.21 5.25 Baa 5.75 5.93 5.84 Avg 5.35 5.21 5.29 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.23 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.24 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.22

Sounds like that merger has given you a gift: an excellent opportunity to stop filing as well as a great way to explain it to the EBSA. Just to be sure, you may want to search the 5500 instructions and/or the EBSA and IRS websites for any guidance (likely, you are not the first to have this problem).

The 402(g) limit is an individual limit, not plan limit. Don't forget about catch-up contributions, if eligible.

IMHO, WestCoast is correct, with a strict reading of IRC 417(a)(5), which appears to exempt a plan from all of 417(a) under certain conditions. Similar in ERISA section 205. However, read both Notice 2008-30 and the "Technical Explanation of H.R. 4 prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation" (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pensionreform.html, page 258 of PDF document). It appears the "flavor" of both interprets the intent of PPA section 1004 to require all DB plans to offer at least 2 J&S forms of payment. I see nothing in either that addresses the situation raised by WestCoast. My guess is a zero chance that the average IRS agent would understand this subtle distinction, even though you can always hang onto a strict reading of the IRC if you believe the regulatory guidance is incorrect or inconsistent. BTW, since an IRS Notice is not a regulation, it's binding on the IRS but not on the plan. (Is that an accurate synopsis?) Next is the legal counsel's function of advising the plan sponsor whether it's worth the bother of fighting the IRS. I look forward to reading the result.

Here is some other DOL guidance. http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/AOs/settlor_guidance.html

Likely, no election has been made. Probably, 55% is the plan's default percentage. Because he died, no other options are available. Yes, you can defer commencement of your benefit, and it will increase the monthly amount. The amounts you provide appear to be sensible: 623.33 x .64 = 398.93, his benefit assumed payable at age 60 398.93 x .935 = 373.00, his benefit at age 60 assuming the 55% surviving spouse form of payment 373.00 x .55 = 205.15, your benefit at his age 60 (equivalent to assuming he retired on his 60th birthday and died immediately) [Please note that no one here has the ability to verify the original amount, 623.33.]

Assignment may be irrelevant. Will the Plan Administrator write the spouse's name on the check? If the PA is being cautious, expect a NO response.

A good way to solve this problem is to hire an actuary.

Yes, your attorney should, but she might not. Here is an example of what might be your situation: - Suppose your ex had earned a benefit of $1000. Assuming this is a defined benefit pension plan, that (probably) means he could retire at 65 and receive $1000 per month for his lifetime. This lifetime benefit (usually) includes no survivor benefit. - Instead, if he retired early (e.g. age 55), he could receive the same benefit, but reduced to reflect the longer period of payment; in this case, the monthly amount may be about $500. - Upon retirement, he gets the option of receiving a lesser monthly amount in order to guarantee a continuing benefit to a surviving spouse. If that continuation is half of his benefit, then the result might be $450 to him and $225 to the spouse (paid to her only if she survives him). The reduction from $500 to $450 is the "cost" of providing the benefit guarantee to the spouse. - If the person is vested in his benefit (even if no longer an employee of the company) the plan must provide a similar guaranteed spouse benefit even if he dies before reaching retirement age. In my experience, a large majority of plans use that definition as a default. Just a guess: the benefit due to you is based on his accrued (earned) benefit, reduced to reflect early retirement date, also reduced to reflect an assumption that he elected a payment form to provide the 50% surviving spouse benefit, and also reduced for the 50% to the spouse.

Cash value annuity? What do you mean?

Such a simple concept, so often ignored.Implicit in QDROphile's advice is that actual plan administration should also be consistent.

Might be hasty to assume this is "IRS v. DOL". It might be "001 vs. 002" (that is, a simple mistake).

GMK is suggesting that the plan can be amended to modify the definition of leave in the special case of death. Assuming the plan sponsor wants to make that modification.

Don't know about Code/regs, but your provision is very common in my experience.

What is your relationship to the plan/termination process? The actuary will know how to do this, and will know how to read this reg: http://www.pbgc.gov/practitioners/law-regu.../page14765.html

There are a few prior discussion threads related to this topic. You can use the Search feature, possibly with a search word such as "illegal". But read Post #10 in this one: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=40702

Any comments, Peter?

Not such a great guarantee, huh? BTW, read the contract carefully, rather than take at face value anyone's statement that such adjustment must apply.

Think outside the box: perhaps a relative loaned the money to the EE? That just takes care of the immediate need to pay the invoice, but does it eliminate the hardship?

Could someone else have paid the bill, as a loan?

Logan, Allocations that are based on flat dollar, in whole or in part, will provide a very favorable basis for non-discrimination testing (ie, the pct is higher as the comp gets lower).

The Enrolled Actuaries Report (published quarterly) includes a 2-page chart of the primary limits, some with unrounded amounts. http://www.actuary.org/ear/index.asp Each year, look in the Winter edition.