david rigby

That is the point. The alternate payee cares.

I read the original post to mean the QDRO was prepared at the time of divorce. If so, might counsel be at fault for failing to send it to the plan administrator? (Granted, we don't know "fault", but it's just a question.)

Not necessarily. Some of the relevant prior discussions: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=32041 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=31945 You can search for more.

If the QDRO was completed several years ago but not presented until recently, and is later determined to be valid, it seems appropriate that it be applied prospectively only. Or does this matter? Or might there be some malpractice by the AP's counsel?

Perhaps you want to reread Rev. Ruling 77-2, especially section 2.02 and section 3.

I cannot imagine the sponsor wanting to make such statement to an employee.

Don't "lean". Decide!

Never underestimate the value of our intrepid webmaster: http://benefitslink.com/jobs/by_date.stm These postings may not contain salary, but it may take you to links where that information is available.

Just a few thoughts: What is the question? If the QDRO is valid, then what is the issue? The Plan does not have any choice here. Is the anger of the participant displaced, since he (and/or his attorney) looked at the QDRO when it was still in draft form? Why is the plan/sponsor trying to soothe this anger?

I agree with others. Publishable? Yes. GrayBook? No.

I would recommend the form be filed, every year. In my experience, it is the plan sponsor who has the most difficulty locating copies. Locating originals won't be any easier, so expecting them to locate several years of Bs and/or Ps is asking for trouble.

Yep. I have seen a formula which used 0.5% times service (max. 40 years), which is less than the 22.75% overall maximum.

You might try contacting one or more of these individuals, from the introduction to the 2006 Gary Book: The following representatives of the Enrolled Actuaries Program Committee attended the meeting: Bruce A. Cadenhead, Mercer Human Resource Consulting Curtis M. Cartolano, Hewitt Associates LLC Marjorie R. Martin, Aon Consulting John H. Moore, CCA Strategies LLC Jay P. Rosenberg, Buck Consultants LLC Donald J. Segal, CCA Strategies LLC Kenneth A. Steiner, Watson Wyatt Worldwide James Stinchcomb, Towers Perrin

... and there is no requirement that plans "co-ordinate" eligbility provisions. (Perhaps it was not a question after all, but just venting? If so, perhaps you may wish to direct your comments to your employer.)

See page 2 of the form/instructions: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f5558.pdf “Form 5500 or Form 5500-EZ is filed on or before the return/report’s normal due date on a properly completed and signed Form 5558, you will automatically be granted one extension of not more than 21⁄2 months.”

Duplicate posting! http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=32083&hl=

Is this comment targeted at the IRS "dislike" of a negative unfunded? If so, that is a stream no one wants to paddle against. While it may be mathematically possible, it appears the IRS considers it unreasonable, and therefore would violate the requirement for a reasonable funding method. Not worth the struggle.

Not sure if this came up at the EA meeting. I asked Jim Holland about this a few days ago. He confirmed that, although the 404 section had no expiration date, the cross referenced 412 sections did expire for plan years beginning in 2006. Thus, 404 CL rate = 412 CL rate (which is not required to = the gateway rate). Pending pension reform legislation may revert to the 2004/2005 rules, and appears to amend the expired sections by a one-year extension. But nothing is official until its official.

ditto

I think Mike is correct. I recall some statement (probably from the IRS) that you cannot make a contribution for a plan year prior to that plan year, and therefore, all contributions during a PY must be shown on the Sch. B (or accrued on a prior B). Perhaps the IRS is saying OK not to amend unless there is a deficiency. My preference would be otherwise: amend it, etiher way.

Does the plan permit distributions to any participant who is over NRA, even if still employed?

Interesting. Can anyone confirm, or clarify the context, that IRS statement?

The link provided by vebaguru is the online Actuarial Directory. You do not need an "identity" to use it. Just click "Search the Directory".

Are you talking about full funding, and a non-zero credit balance? The balance equation should include the credit balance and the accumulated reconciliation account. Also, remember that the actual UAL should not be less than zero, but there is no such restriction (at least not in regulatory statement from the IRS) on the expected UAL.

I'll wait until Tom posts a similar message in 2106.