david rigby

The portion of the letter does not allow for the "other side" of the question, such as: "If our report is in error, please provide dates and amounts of contributions for plan year XXXX"

Presumably, Trustee = Plan Administrator = owner of plan sponsor? If you have any relationship with this person's attorney and/or accountant, perhaps they can be encouraged to contribute their own comments.

Maybe. Does this plan provide a 415-maximum benefit? If so, you are (probably) stuck with whatever the 415 regs apply for any commencement date prior to age 62. But, if the benefit is less than the 415-maximum benefit, using an Early Retirement date AND a generous early retirement factor can be useful. Example: Early Retirement at 55/20 with an ER reduction factor of zero, might accomplish the original goal. It's also prudent to know whether there are (or were) any other plans.

It's possible this is "overthinking". Consider the use of an Early Retirement definition that addresses the needs of the plan sponsor.

Ding, ding, ding!

Never look for trouble. The simplest answer is often the best: if you can provide the page(s) from the audit report, do so. That is exactly what the SAR reference means. Peter is (as usual) correct: confirm that a PDF transmittal will be acceptable.

This provision was new to me when I read this thread. I'm a (mostly retired) consultant, not a record-keeper. That said, from the latter point of view, I expect ALL recordkeepers to avoid this. If I were consulting with such organization, I would recommend they refuse to take on any plan with such provision and refuse to allow any use by existing plans. From the consulting viewpoint, similar to Belgarath's comment, I cannot imagine any value to the employer and/or the employee population. I foresee abuse, as well as significant additional administrative costs. IMHO, the issue raised by Peter in the original post is valid, and an area of potential abuse. Of course, the IRS and/or DOL owe the EE Ben community some direct, and rapid, answer to his question. But no matter what is that answer, the administrative hassles of adoption could be horrendous. As many have heard before, my most common advice is "think outside the box".

Is there any requirement that the post-NRA actuarial equivalent adjustment be based on both interest and mortality? I'm not aware of any such requirement. Maybe this is a great opportunity to think outside the box. My favorite is 1/2% per month, with compounding every 12 months.

Ding, ding, ding!

Don't forget to look at the big picture: The dentist (ie, the boss) might get some value (eg, happy EEs) by simultanelusly announcing the sale and saying, "for those of you who are not already 100% vested in our plan, you now are 100% vested". This should be true even if the vesting occurred via amendment and the sale takes place a few weeks later.

If this is a DC plan (as Luke tells us), there is the presumption that the entire account balance is the death benefit, payable to (at least) one beneficiary. Therefore, this is the amount that could be transferred to a court; no more, no less (unless I have overlooked some unusual circumstance). However, one of those unusual circumstance is that some DC plans include J&S payment forms; these are precisely the plans where the original B vs. C "conflict" could be relevant, so the precise death benefit is not knowable.

Nothing on point in the Gray Book.

Luke, could you avoid the 1099 question by: segregating the $$ amount into a separate account (ie, not actually distributed), and informing the court of such action, and with distribution (and 1099) pending until the court makes its decision?

Not to muddy the waters: If this were a DB plan, it's possible the benefit payable to B does not equal the benefit payable to C.

No disagreement with prior responses, but there is another important consideration. If you estimated 15-20K, but your actual time was 12K (and that's what you invoice), then you may need (proactively) to explain why your actual is outside your estimated range. This is not always the case, but a competent consultant will anticipate such questions in the client relationship AND consider whether this has an impact on any future fees. A good consultant will always be considering the viewpoint on the other side of the relationship.

Hi Effen. Would it help to address these specific questions directly to the CSRS?

Just wondering about the practicality: Is it possible to have an independent appraiser make such a determination within 60 days after separation of service? if not, maybe some other formula? Asking for a friend.

Is there also a DC plan? Not mandatory, but it might be useful to make sure the plan design considers the existence of another plan.

What does the plan say?

Reasonable, but not conclusive. However, as QDROphile implies, it would be prudent to get some documentation. BTW, my limited experience with the federal pension program is that they do not use "DRO" or "QDRO"; instead, the term "court order" is used, but terminology may not be consistent.

As CuseFan implies, no one wants to be left holding the bag (or a bad check) for someone else's sloppy records or handwriting. Consider when a sponsor has two plans (say, hourly and salaried); it's very important to correctly document every transaction, in both directions. Look for ways to accommodate both the sponsor and the financial institution.

TPA pricing structure might have some influence on the plan sponsor's choice. Consider carefully.

Is there a DRO that purports to be a QDRO?

Revenue Ruling 2002-84 was published in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2002-50, dated 12/16/02. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb02-50.pdf.

Have you seen any study about possible anti-selection (e.g., higher average mortality than the overall population or plan population) with respect to a Social Security Level Option?