david rigby

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.

A recent discussion thread on the topic of recovering pension benefits paid after a retiree's death: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=29610&hl= Use the Search feature to find others. For example, searching only in the DB forum with the keyword of "deceased" produced this list: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?a...ghlite=deceased Other forums and/or keywords may also be useful.

If the 1099 is correct, isn't this a simple matter of the plan sponsor applying an adjustment the next time it remits withholding amounts?

Perhaps my experience is limited, but change in control provisions seem to be common in publcily traded companies. However, they may not be as extensive as the provisions you mention. For example, sometimes they are only a vesting trigger. Where there is a "reassignment" provision, most have a time limit (such as 6 or 12 months). The wording of such provisions is not ambiguous.

Just a few of the "hits" when you Search using the keyword of "minor" http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=2806 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=19426 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=15198 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=28444 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=4344 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=15793

Hold on here. What do you mean after tax withholding? BTW, are you referring to a deferral election that is a $ amount (rather than a percent)? If the former, the plan should already anticipate this (see, I'm not being sarcastic) by specifying what happens if the EE elects a deferral that is "too big". I suspect the real problem here is caused by "garnishments". Perhaps the EE elected a deferral, then received a garnishment? Maybe the solution is for the EE to reduce his deferral until the garnishment is completed. After all, the paycheck is finite.

I agree with stephen. Perhaps this will be another technological evolution. Express your preferences to as many firms as you can, maybe talking to the "office manager" as well as the individual broker. Be proactive about your suggestion; for example, would you prefer receving PDF copies e-mailed, or maybe you want it on a CD-rom, etc.

Isn't the definition related to "married" or "spouse"? (Spouses don't even have to live together.) What does the plan say?

The actions you describe may violate the spirit of those (or other) cites, if not the letter. However, in general, governmental plans are not subject to those rules. IMHO, your first action is to complain to the governor, then to your state legislative representatives. (But, they may be in cahoots.) Perhaps there is a kind newspaper editor who will provide some publicity for your cause.

Please help this non-attorney understand. Why would that request not be rejected merely under lawyer-client privilege?

Have you asked the brokerage firm(s)?

Do these plans cover the same employees? If so, why not merge them and have only one 5500 to worry about?

I agree. It may also be that there is a fiduciary duty to try to collect, no matter what your real-world expectation. Even if you think the chance is zilch for various reasons, you should send the letter because the next time it happens will have different circumstances.

Where on the Form 990 was this entered? BTW, just skimming the 990 and instructions, it appears to refer to cash contributions, not accounting expense.

Blinky's concern seems correct to me. After all, every amendment has (or should have) a statement that it will not reduce any participant's accrued benefit at the later of the effective date or the adoption date. But perhaps I misunderstand the intent of the amendment.