david rigby

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!

It is likely the plan will not automatically do anything to the J&S benefit in event of a divorce. See IRS Reg. 1.401(a)-20, Q&A25. Also, you may find some other prior discussions, such as this one: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=44361

Can: 1. Yes. 2. All the way. Likelihood: 1. 50/50 2. 10 pct I'll be watching. Dark horse: Japan

Of course, if such a provision is added to a plan, 411d6 would be violated if it applied to benefits already accrued.

The form is pretty simple. Modification seems unlikely. From 2009 instructions for Form 5500:

Do we know that the plan says that? Do we know that this is a DC plan?

I agree w/ rcline46. It's probably not a partial termination, but the sponsor has the option of being more generous. Although not likely, watch out for any resulting discrimination. If in doubt, the sponsor should contact its ERISA counsel.

I think your scenario is, or should be, permissible. Partially related comment: If the plan states that excess assets are allocated to participants, and if there would be non-zero excess assets under a standard termination, would your proposed scenario cause a fiduciary violation in any way?

I lean toward (b). If the beneficiary put forth a good argument in favor of ©, I might be sympathetic. Of course, if the PA has a precedent or administrative practice, that should be included. While Effen's suggestion of an escrow account might be nice, the PA still has to account for the possibility that the designated beneficiary will never show up, or is currently deceased, in which case the PA (and/or the plan) may have procedures for designating a contingent beneficiary.

Good idea, but you will have 410a26 problems if it is a DB plan.

I think there has been a similar discussion thread. Perhaps the Search feature will be useful.

If this means that the account has already been transferred to the beneficiary, prior to the beneficiary's death, then masteff's comment is exactly correct. But if the quote means something else, then you may have to search the plan document for direction on how to define a contingent beneficiary.

Are you willing to elaborate?

... and you can read more about QDRO's here: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/qdros.html

Many plans address this by defining a contingent beneficiary.

I agree that it appears to be a (not very) subtle way of placing a link. However, it appears to conform to the conditions set out here: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=43592

... and be careful about HCE's.

As always, read the plan document.

Really? Most plans address this.

This plan sponsor should have competent ERISA counsel. First.

Does the Plan require a spouse signoff?

Page 12 of this? www.groom.com/media/publication/259_07-7 enclosure.pdf