david rigby

As implied, there could be a 411(d)(6) violation in the proposed change. As @CuseFan points out, "It's the plan language that is important here..." so this plan sponsor would benefit from review by ERISA counsel. In addition, this sponsor could benefit from some experienced consulting advice about: the details of the benefit structure within the plan, what minimums and/or maximums could apply, defining the covered group(s), what non-discrimination testing is relevant, how to build in future flexibility, etc. I'm mostly retired, so that advice would not come from me, but I can offer some recommendations if needed.

Normally, the county of the court pays jury service comp. Perhaps you could add some context or more description to your inquiry?

By implication, the distribution occurred after the 2022 rehire. However, the date of distribution (ie, before or after the rehire) is unclear from the original post.

Yes, advice from QDROphile is good (as usual). Other points: Since there is a new "administrator", there might be new QDRO procedures. Ask. The name/identity of the "new plan administrator" is (likely) irrelevant to what goes in any QDRO. You might need a new address, but it should not impact the content of the DRO and/or QDRO.

Is there a plan? What effective date?

Luke is exactly right. It's not a logical stretch to think that "excess plan" should include the comp limits, but that is not the precise wording of the statute. The historical context is that the compensation limits in IRC 410(a)(17) did not exist at the time ERISA [and its section 3(36)] were written in 1974.

Pretty simple to take the IRS version and cut out the parts you don't need (for example, if the Plan has no Roth accounts). In my experience, the only thing I customize is the plan name. Easy peasy.

Have I missed something? What is the distributable event?

Please do not do surgery on any rockets. 😉

Yes, to all the above advice. It might be prudent to do a little due diligence (and documentation) to make sure the plan was formally (and correctly) terminated. It cannot be both a merger and a termination. If the latter, then you know to step aside.

You might get some help by using the Search feature above, with the search phrase "mistake of fact".

And notice that the TRS Guide linked above does not refer to the participant and/or spouse signing anything. It does use the phrase "signed DRO", which refers to the proper court signatory.

You misunderstand. The most pressing issue for almost all members of Congress is getting re-elected.

Ya know, @austin3515, you are also permitted to "call Congress". Try your own Representative and Senators. Also, the various committees receive online comments.

But... what is the regulatory definition of "officer"? Hint: title means nothing.

Have you determined whether this EE is exempt from all definitions of Key Employee? IOW, you say the EE is "an officer", but have you reviewed the definition of both Key Employee and officer in regulation 1.416?

Interesting topic @Effen. I hope to hear how this question is resolved.

Math can be your friend. Determine how much is currently non-vested. Then do a reasonable estimate of the turnover/graded vesting over the next 3-4 years, as a means of estimating how much of the non-vested amount may be forfeited. You may find the actual "cost" of awarding 100% vesting now isn't very significant. The ER should also evaluate the PR value of taking credit for this (not required) action. If you have trouble doing this calculation, there are lots of actuaries that can help you.

@Luke Bailey is correct. In my 40+ years as a pension actuary, I've never seen a plan that was "frozen" except for comp.

Wow. @Carol V. Calhoun has posted (12/04/23) a thoughtful treatise/practice note on Substantial Risk of Forfeiture. https://benefitsattorney.com/articles/substantial-risk-of-forfeiture/

Does IRC 411(a)(4), and related regulations, have relevance?

I do not. But then, I don't have access to the applicable amendment(s) and/or plan document.

The answer will be found in the amendment that froze the Plan. If it is silent, the answer is probably "no".

Non-lawyer here, but it might mean the drafting attorney(s) don't understand QDROs. Or it might mean the parties need to go get a DRO drafted. Just sayin'.

Yeah, correct. The original post is so brief as to be almost worthless. To the original poster: you need legal advice from an attorney who is very familiar with QDROs. If you have an attorney who does not meet that qualification, keep looking.