david rigby

Sort of. - Many DC plans allow EE contributions, but they are usually 401(k)-type deferrals (pre-tax). After-tax contributions are permitted but not very common. - DB plans rarely permit EE contributions of any type, primarily due to difficult administrative burdens. There is a significant exception in government-sponsored DB plans, since such organizations can generally utilize tax code provisions that allow pre-tax contributions.

Just a few thoughts, in no particular order: - What kind of plan is this? - What is the basis on which the payments commenced? (retirement, age 70+, etc.) - Is this an HCE or former HCE? - Does the plan have any provision which permits the participant to give "instructions to stop her pension payments"? - Does this plan really have an "account" for the participant?

This may be one of the relevant prior discussions: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=29380

Does the plan have a hardship provision? If not, is the ER willing to add it?

Or the plan sponsor says "ouch" to the law firm, and see if a lower fee is available. Or look for another law firm. Or pay it.

Talk to your client!

Or maybe the EE thinks the H stands for Hooky.

It is my understanding that this is the primary reason for a "permanent separation", and hence the reason for the reference to "legally separated" in the quoted Q&A.

As we all know, one contributing factor in the decline of DB plans is the lack of understanding/appreciation by the individual participant. Since most actuaries are keenly aware of this, and since many of us have a hand in producing a yearly “pension statement”, I suggest we consider how that statement can improve employee understanding and appreciation. Thus, I suggest using existing materials as a vehicle for this improvement. Specifically, when you produce a statement that shows a benefit projected to NRD, I suggest including a short message on every Statement. This can also be expanded to the production of benefit calculations and estimates. The purpose is a simple method to alert the recipient to the value of the benefit. For example: "The plan benefit is payable for your lifetime. You cannot outlive your pension income. Looking at this another way, if you receive the projected pension benefit for 20 years, you will receive a total of $xxx,000 from the Plan." Comments? Suggestions?

It is my understanding that those whose 2005 comp is > 95K will be HCEs for 2006. [iRC 414(q)(1), indexed, then rounded down to a 5K multiple.]

Possibly, Dell would be a source of good information. http://support.dell.com/

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?