david rigby

Very surprising that this has not happened before. No matter what your procedure, the very existence of the prorated payment is the source of the problem. Does the plan document require this partial payment?

What does the plan say?

There is nothing in the act that provides different application for government plans.

Correct. See Reg. 1.430(g)-1(f)(3). Note that Rev. Proc 2000-40 (section 3.10) provides blanket permission to change to FMV anytime. Such permission does not exist in the current reg, although it is difficult to imagine the IRS denying such request.

Well, there's a shock.

The sponsor / PA is responsible for the filing, so "new owner"

Does this previous discussion help? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=17171

As always, find out what the charge covers before paying it. Is she asking you to pay half of the attorney's charge for drafting the DRO? something else?

What he said.

Hockey? Ugh! Go Braves!

Does plan termination and distribution create a new EOY?

It is my understanding that there is no separate procedure/table for withholding, at least for federal tax purposes. See Form W-4P. Two primary differences between W-4 and W-4P: (a) a pensioner can elect zero withholding on the W-4P, and (b) the default (if no W-4P or other withholding election is submitted) is to assume the pensioner is Married with 3 Exemptions, and then use the regular withholding table/formula. Clarifying edit: (a) and (b) above apply to periodic payments, not to payments eligible for rollover.

Have you considered the possibility that the ER was a government employer at the time, but is no longer?

Aren't non-ERISA plans exempt from ERISA?

Data as of 30-JUN-10 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.66 4.66 Aa 4.95 4.86 4.91 A 5.21 5.17 5.19 Baa 6.00 6.10 6.05 Avg 5.39 5.20 5.30 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.40 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.69 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.37

Surprise!

I agree w/ Andy. "... determined as of the first day of the Plan Year ..." implies (to me, at least) a rate determined throughout the last month of the preceding plan year.

It's been a temporary reprieve for several years, with Congress scheduling a future date for the reduction, followed by a (usually) last-minute deferral of the cut.

It is my understanding that the "Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010" reversed expected cuts in Medicare payments. Have I missed something?

I've changed my mind. I don't think Japan is a dark horse.

Authored by Ellen Schultz. Now there's a surprise.

It seems unlikely that a divorce decree and/or a QDRO could require this, unless the the plan already permitted it. Putting such items in a QDRO may not be wise. They can always be supplied in a non-public document.

"Surplus assets" usually has meaning only at plan termination. If the plan is ongoing, then the overfunding can be (at least partially) used up thru skilled plan design and additional years of service. If the plan formula is not fully integrated, that is a good place to start. If the owners "do not want to have to provide benefits to staff in order to increase their benefits", compare that to paying excise taxes when the plan is terminated.

Are you suggesting that being covered by the PBGC is = to some "knight in shining armor"? Yikes!