david rigby

I think that advice is mostly correct. Just be sure you observe all plan provisions related to the cash balance conversion, as if you were doing it concurrently, then determine the payout available at today's date. But, the original post used the term "DRO". Before doing anything else, follow your plan's QDRO procedures to document that the DRO is (or is not) qualified, including notification to the participant. Since the plan probably issued some statement to the participant showing the CB conversion, it may be prudent to revise that statement at the time you complete the analysis of the AP portion (assuming the order is qualified).

... and look very carefully at the QDRO to determine whether it also includes "accrued amounts".

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1099r.pdf

Perhaps you would like to read the relevant documents: PPA section 901, beginning on p. 247 of this document: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/ppa2006.pdf Also, here is IRS Notice 2008-7 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-08-07.pdf

Exactly. In other words, this is controlled by the plan provisions.

Hold on here. To whom did Jim refer? Are we talking about plan sponsor (who "delays" sending census data to the actuary), trustee (who "delays" sending asset information to the actuary), the actuary? What is the authority for saying delay is not permitted?

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p575.pdf Page 26 lists those types of distributions that are not eligible for rollover.

The Rev. Proc. is not automatically repealed by PPA, but certain parts of it are overridden (such as the ability to adopt the aggregate method); that does not invalidate the RP. IMHO, Approval 13 is still valid. Is there some reason or conflict that you think would interfere with this?

The IRS view ultimately relates to "what is a reasonable funding method?" Read here some prior discusions: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=29346

Not sure about rationale, but this is the one I thought of: Consider a plan that pays full lump sums. Suppose the business owner/management does not want to pay a lump sum to a particular retiring/terminating EE for whatever reason (fear that he/she will use the LS to set up a competing business, etc). By delaying the process of certifying the FTAP/AFTAP, the plan falls below the level at which a LS can be paid. No doubt, others can contribute additional reasons.

If the monies have been paid from the plan, why is Sec. 206 relevant?

Wow is right. Can you elaborate for those of us who are idiots?

Is this the same as your prior post? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=37740

Perhaps you can draw his attention to the plan provision that describe (1) vesting, and (2) QDROs.

Maybe. Does the plan contain language that complies with IRC 414(p(3)? "A domestic relations order meets the requirements of this paragraph only if such order - ... (B) does not require the plan to provide increased benefits (determined on the basis of actuarial value), and ..." This is (usually) an insufficient justification for doing something that would violate the plan document.

1. Could this already be identified in the CBA? 2. The employer could easily handle this if the plan had some eligibility requirements.

Blinky, since I'm behind the curve in this area, I'll just ask: any help for your question here? http://benefitslink.com/modperl/qa.cgi?db=qa_who_is_employer

... and even when there is no collective bargaining.

There is no single "correct" answer, but SoCal's suggestion is a good one.

Got any differences in optional forms? Got any grandfathered groups and/or provisions? (Just in case not covered by your Item 2.) Got any TH issues (especially if in one plan but not the other)? Got milk?

Daily Bond Yields and Key Indicators Data as of 31-JAN-08 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.38 5.38 Aa 5.90 5.75 5.83 A 6.07 6.16 6.12 Baa 6.40 6.85 6.63 Avg 6.12 6.03 6.08 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 2.48 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 3.32 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 4.20

I doubt this is as rare as SoCal implies. This is why I suggest plans permit distribution at NRD, and not suspend upon rehire. Since many rehired retirees are part-time (more than 1000 hours, but less than FT), very often (about 99% of the time in my experience) any additional accrual, offset by payments received, is zero. This gives the employer flexibility in its workforce staffing.

One could argue that state courts that sought to attach qualified plan benefits (in a divorce) were in violation of the original preemption clause of ERISA, but they did it anyway and no one wanted to litigate the point. Congress responded in DEFRA (1984) with the creation of a QDRO, thus creating a specific exemption.

Consensus? Shouldn't that be Amendment 14?

Not sure a 204(h) notice is required, but you can do it "just in case". In general, the only other requirement is the 411(d)(6) clause in your plan amendment. My guess is that your actuary will say the cost impact of this change is zero.