david rigby

Ah, what a wonderful idea. But wishful thinking. I guess that's why we have BenefitsLink! Thanks, Dave.

... assuming your "415 amendment" complies with the 415 regulations.

Not quite. Go to http://www.moodys.com/dailyyields. Daily access, but no history. It changes every business day around 10:30 am (ET).

I think the $14K was from the 401(k) plan and the ~$5K applies to the pension plan. In keeping with Mike's interesting suggestion, remember that a QDRO can cover more than one plan, so your legal counsel may be able to deal with both plans, both amounts in one order.

Ask your attorney if you can record any future phone calls from ex-wife?

Not to contradict any of the other responses, but make sure the plan does not already have some generic language that permits the "plan administrator" a certain amount of latitude in its day-to-day responsibilities. IMHO, imposing a reasonable deadline could be considered part of such responsibilites. Sure, there can be debate over "reasonable". Also, look for precedent.

Just my opinion, but....I say the greater of (a) or (d), where (d)= accrued benefit at 1/1/09 = $1000 plus post-98 accrual. Of course, the exact wording of the new benefit accrual formula is important, as well as plan wording of the actuarial increase provision.

OK, Austin, did you borrow it, or take it? If the former, how are you going to return it?

Well stated. Essentially, this points out the ERISA and IRC were written long before anyone thought of hybrid plans, and the statutes simply do not recognize that they are neither DB nor DC as originally contemplated. If the IRS wants correct statutes and regulations, they should argue in favor of Congressional action that creates a new paradigm to cover hybrid plans, instead of forcing as is.

There are other discussion threads about shams, with or without divorce. Try the Search feature.

Jim does not hide his e-mail adddress in the Actuarial Directory: https://www.actuarialdirectory.org/solution...t.aspx?tabid=64

Note that, under Tom's suggestion, anyone (including doctors) hired after 1/1/06 and before 7/1/06 will enter the plan on 7/1/07.

Seems difficult to claim that the participant requested this payment, especially since the original post implies that the corrective distribution is required by the plan.

BTW, as you probably already know, if the DRO contains the SSN of the P and/or AP, it is prudent to have it removed, since the QDRO will be a public document. In these days of heightened interest in personal security, it seems ridiculous to require the QDRO to contain the SSN. Just a thought.

I like it. Your reference to "contingencies" is (IMHO) only outlining multiple (non-overlapping) scenarios. Note that the AP benefit at 55 is "1/2 of the value", which is probably not one-half of the accrued monthly benefit, in absolute dollars. Suggestion: Since the DRO specifies what happens if the participant dies first, why not also specify what happens if the AP dies first before commencment, and what happens if the AP dies first after commencment?

Peruse here: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/compliance_assistance.html#section5 For example, 2008 Schedule SB: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/2008-5500-Schedule-SB.pdf

Exactly right. The word "divorce" does not appear in IRC 414(p).

Daily Bond Yields and Key Indicators Data as of 29-FEB-08 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.42 5.42 Aa 5.93 5.79 5.86 A 6.09 6.20 6.15 Baa 6.51 6.99 6.75 Avg 6.18 6.10 6.14 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 2.07 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 3.11 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 4.18

The provider is (should be) irrelevant to the amortization schedule. Before assuming the new provider is incorrect, check the terms of the loan, to make sure the prior schedule agreed with the terms of the loan document. BTW, please turn off your CapsLock key.

You can find Revenue Rulings here: http://www.taxlinks.com/

If we are talking about a CB plan (or other hybrid) designed to fit as an "applicable defined benefit plan" under PPA section 701, the minimum vesting requirement is 100% at 3 years. New IRC 411(b)(5).

Before getting counsel, get the SPD.

"my 401k"? "my friend"? No matter. For other discussion on similar situations, http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=33713

As I understand the original question, that code section does not apply. Although IRS may disagree, I see nothing in IRC that would prohibit an accrued benefit to decrease solely because a person's compensation (in this case, average compensation) goes down. However, just as important is careful reading of the plan document. In particular, the original Q mentions PT and FT, concepts which are not usually defined (or relevant) in most qualified plan documents. For example, if EE works 1200 hours, gets another year of service, perhaps the plan definition will include that pay in determination of average, but if the EE works 800 hours, then such year is excluded.

I agree that this will (probably) cause backloading problems. I have seen this provision once before, but it was applied only to the vesting percent (eg, 100% vested if "laid off" with 3+ YOS), but don't know if it was ever a BRF concern.