david rigby

Maybe Lance knows the answer!

In my observation, it is very common. That is, many plans define service w/ 1000-hour rule. The plan may have separate definitions for vesting service and benefit service, but (practically) those definitions are identical. Upon reaching a plan entry date (very often defined with a one-year eligibility period and dual entry dates), the employee will always have earned a YOS and might be very close to earning a second YOS. Or perhaps I've misread the question.

What a great deal!

The original post implied, but did not state, that the participant is a VT. However, if the participant is actively employed, then the confusion over address may not be the fault of the participant.

The participant had to elect the form of distribution. Might the election form already serve this purpose? (OK, it may be wishful thinking, but it's worth a look.)

I agree with Andy. Both times.

See IRS Reg. 1.430(f)-1(d)(3)(ii). Read carefully.

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

Data as of 31-AUG-10 (Tuesday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.26 4.26 Aa 4.53 4.48 4.51 A 4.78 4.78 4.78 Baa 5.36 5.60 5.48 Avg 4.89 4.78 4.84 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.28 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.23 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.83

Agree. Treat this as a data correction.

See IRC 411(a)(13) for the PPA-added vesting requirement for "hypothetical account balance plans".

Almost always this question is answered by the plan's definition of compensation.

Except for cash balance/hybrid plans.

Don't know if your inquiry is addressed, but Carol Calhoun includes a variety of information on her website: http://benefitsattorney.com/index.php

Normally, the plan document should identify who has the power to amend, and the trust document would not have power to override the plan document.

Per IRC sec. 71(b), alimony is taxable to the recipient (and hence deductible by the payor), if Since your payments to your ex are clearly not part of the QDRO, check with your attorney to see if those payments can be considered alimony under your divorce/separation agreement. You know what happens when we assume.

Prior discussions might help you: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=34236 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=32892

... exception when the "customer" is the taxpayer.

He doesn't have to request a distribution. The plan is terminating, so the plan provisions will dictate what to pay, and when.

Good advice. To expand on this inquiry, if the plan is paying your ex before the QDRO is approved, that is probably not permitted by the plan. If you are paying it directly to ex, pending approval of QDRO, that is not a QDRO payment and you are responsible for the taxes on those amounts.

Is there a reason to terminate?

The original post may have an unspecified focus: Is that your question?

Incorrect spelling. It's Go Braves!

Probably advisable for the plan to engage its ERISA attorney on this question (or anything similar).

First concern is whether the plan still passes 410b and/or 410a26.