david rigby

Thanks to all. We will go with 1/1/06. I like Tom's argument/logic. Also, using 1/1/06 is supported by deciding in favor of the participant, because a 1/1/05 NRD would probably yield a zero NRB. Gary's comments are reasonble, except for the presence of a minimum benefit at NRD, which then is subject to actuarial increase to a later retirement date.

Certainly a good idea. But that solution will not help the existing situation.

Possibly this has been addressed before, but I could not locate it. Assume NRA is age 65, and NRD is first of the next month (or something similar), and the plan requires one year of service in order to participate. Example, CY plan year, EE is hired on 12/31/2004 at age 66. He/she then can become a participant at 1/1/2006. What is the NRA? NRD? Alternative 1: NRA = 12/31/04 and NRD = 01/01/2005, retroactively established when the EE becomes a participant. Alternative 2: Both = 01/01/2006, on the assumption that you cannot have NRA or NRD if you are not in the Plan. Alternative 3: Other? Perhaps you think, who cares? But I see relevance under IRC 411(b)(1)(H)(iii).

Gray Book 95-45 QDROs -- Impact on Pre-termination Restrictions What is the impact of a QDRO on the pre-termination restrictions of regulation section 1.401(a)(4)-5(b)? RESPONSE: The restrictions on distributions is applied on a pro-rata basis to the benefit of the restricted employee and alternate payee. Gray Book 2003-25 Restricted Employees: QDRO and Restricted Payments to High 25 What restrictions apply to the payment of benefits to an alternate payee under a QDRO where the participant is one of the "high-25" restricted HCEs and the payment of a current benefit does not escape the restriction using the 110% or 1% rules. In the specific case, the spouse has been awarded 70% of the participant's 12/31/01 accrued benefit and the spouse would like to choose the lump sum option. RESPONSE The high-25 restriction applies to the combination of the benefit paid to the participant and the spouse. Thus the limit must be used and, assuming the spouse is limited to 70% of what the participant could have received, a lump sum distribution cannot be made unless an arrangement for repayment is in place (see Rev. Rul. 92-76). The spouse can be paid up to 70% of the life annuity amount (plus SS supplement if there is one) without restriction. Copyright © Enrolled Actuaries Meeting All rights reserved by Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. Permission is granted to print or otherwise reproduce a limited number of copies of the material on the diskette for personal, internal, classroom, or other instructional use, on the condition that the foregoing copyright notice is used so as to give reasonable notice of the copyright of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. This consent for free limited copying without prior consent of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting does not extend to making copies for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for inclusion in new collective works, or for sale or resale.

mbozek is slipping up. He usually will advise you (correctly) to seek review by ERISA counsel, in this case especially to make sure that plan A does not have some "operational taint" that B would not want to assume.

IMHO, the intent of this wording implicitly includes the condition that the SSA will actually make this determination.

Not everyone will agree, but Ned will like this.

We'll leave such legal opinions to QDROphile and other attorneys. However, before acting as he suggested, just who are you? If you are "the plan" or a TPA etc, then you have nothing to do. If the participant asks you, then suggest he/she (or the attorney) read this thread.

Documentation, documentation, documentation. Employer should be willing to describe the "why" and "how much". On the other hand, perhaps that was already done.

Most of us would prefer not to advise the "perpetrator" about his best course of action. Probably, the judge will "encourage" this person to take a rollover distribution, then withdraw the funds and sign them over to the company.

Start here: http://benefitslink.com/IRS/revproc2003-44.html

The tendency to post the same message twice will get you advice, but it will be "spread out". http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=29683

I like the IRA route better than the 20% withholding. You may find some help from prior discussions. Use the Search feature, and try different search words, like "embezzle", "embezzled", "embezzlement", etc.

That depends. Is one of the classes related to collective bargaining?

Carol Calhoun's website has this article: http://benefitsattorney.com/modules.php?na...=showpage&pid=1

I think we do have an answer. Let's try this thread, initiated by some bozo: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=23128

What does the Plan say?

The rights of your ex to any portion of your plan account are determined by a QDRO. Period. If the settlement specifed there will be a split, then it appears the problem is a lack of a QDRO, not the passage of 6 years. Probably you and/or your ex should be discussing with your attorneys the proper way to adhere to the terms of the settlement. I'm only an observer. As a non-attorney, my advice would be to consult with your legal counsel. (Perhaps I already did that.)

My memory may be faulty, but I recall a contributor pointing out that "benefitting" is not quite the correct concept under 404(a)(7). What counts is if you are a participant in either plan, with out regard to such issues as vesting, funding method, benefit accrual, etc.

I'm unsure what your question means, but anything here that might help? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=26823 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=24749 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=24927 IRC 404(a)(7).

I would think the PA may want to get its act together, first to determine if it made a payment in violation of a duly received (and valid) QDRO. If so, then to determine if it can be fixed. BTW, how long ago was this transaction? Could it have been less than 60 days ago?

If the quarterly statement contains the information on the required notice, then no additional notice at the time of the SSA is needed.

Seems pretty fishy (no pun intended, Blinky). Why is this on the table?

What do you mean "charge"? Do you (TPA) work for the plan or the plan administrator? Is it not the plan administrator who decides whether to pay expense directly or have the plan pay some? Does this meet the DOL conditions for a settlor expense?

Do it.