david rigby

Agree. But watch out for lax administration. For example, suppose the retiree remarries and then dies 10 years later. To those administering the plan, the (new) widow is "the spouse", and they may not realize the first wife is the one (and only) surviving spouse for the J&S benefit.

You can see IRS Pub.560 here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p560.pdf, or call to have a copy mailed to you. You can also find resources here: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/consumer_info_pension.html The link in post above by wmyer appears to ignore defined benefit plans as an alternative. Depending on the factors mentioned above (ages, compensation, etc.), a DB plan could be a valid consideration. Don’t be scared off by those who say they are dinosaurs; DB plans have advantages that can be significant in certain situations, but may not be cost effective for all employers.

You can also find the SOA Table Manager here: http://library.soa.org:8080/xtbml/jsp/index.jsp The UP-84 Table is labeled as table number 831, and titled “1984 US UP, Male & Female”. Read the Comments carefully.

Agree.

That's not what I meant, but you can think whatever you want.

vebaguru is right on some points, including the post above. But my reason is not listed: competition.

You might find value here: http://benefitslink.com/modperl/qa.cgi?db=qa_who_is_employer Note especially the link "view Q&As by topic".

What is the prize? and why did I win? I'm not sure about AndyH's "as good a guess as any", but I agree that there is not enough information here (that is, on this discussion thread) to entirely evaluate the proper value of the Alternate Payee's portion. Likely, to determine the participant's portion, it will be whatever's left after you have determined the A.P. portion, so be sure the DRO gives adequate definition.

And hold your breath.

Anyone?

Well, perhaps. It might be hasty to put all of this in one basket. Always start with a careful review of what the QDRO is awarding.

South Carolina?

That is one way, and probably the most common, so I endorse it. Make sure you focus first on what the QDRO really defines. But don't be too quick to blame the QDRO or the attorney(s) for any confusion. If it is like virtually all QDROs I have seen, it will contain "boilerplate" language that the QDRO is not requiring the plan to pay more in total benefits. I'll bet it is similar to the actual language of the statute. There is a pretty good chance such language is also in your plan document.

http://benefitslink.com/software.html BTW, some of us don't discuss what software we use, for various reasons.

Many. More importantly, many unanswered questions. For example, other employees? What type of business (LLC, corporation, etc.)? Goal(s) of the plan sponsor (other than putting in something for tax deferral)? What level of benefit is considered? I recommend hiring an actuary who is experienced in small plan design. (Well, you didn't think I was going to recommend hiring a gorilla, did you?)

It may be a typo, but that still does not tell you if it should have been IA71 or IA83. Perhaps an older document might clarify?

I've been around since before 1981, and have never heard of such a table. Possible that it could be based in another country (such as Canada or UK), but I did not see anything listed in the SOA Table manager here. I agree with SoCal, that the most likely answer is a projection from another table

1. What does the plan say? 2. Any precedent? 3. Is this an HCE? Could any claim of discrimination arise? 4. See (1).

No disrespect to either Blinky or Kirk, both of whom are excellent contributors to these Boards, but I don't think Kirk’s statement is what Blinky was saying. In fact, an actuary (specifically, an Enrolled Actuary, for an ERISA plan) should always be reassessing the reasonableness of the actuarial assumptions. Importantly, "reassess" does not mean "change." In theory, the actuary could make changes to a set of assumptions every year. Examples would include small changes in a turnover or salary scale assumption. Larger changes might include the interest/discount rate, or the mortality table. (Please, no comments about "large" or "small"; two points, what is the impact of a possible change, and what is the effort in measuring a change.) Consider, virtually every year, a small change could be appropriate (fine tune the salary scale or turnover assumption), but is ignored because it makes so little difference to the end result. Here, there is no single definition of "end result", but is most likely the annual contribution or the funded ratio. One reason this is so, is that most actuarial funding methods are self-correcting; that is a good thing, and is exactly the reason the assets and liabilities are reevaluated and compared on a regular basis. How does this relate to the original question? Possibly, the assumption about purchasing life insurance is unreasonable; if so, that determination is (or should have been) apparent because it has been contrary to facts for a period of time. However, one deviation of facts from assumptions is not a determination of “unreasonableness”. In this case, the actuary would converse with the plan sponsor/plan administrator to review the issues concerning the possible purchase of insurance; in reviewing the assumption, likely the most relevant facts will come from that conversation, not from observing that no insurance was purchased. The actuary’s goal is to value the death benefit under the plan; proper assumptions for this goal will be chosen; therefore, the actuary may decide to alter an assumption next year. All of this is very different from saying a portion of a contribution may not be deductible.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but this sounds like a mixture of 412 and 404. There appears to be some doubt in this discussion about the "reasonableness" of the Normal Cost. That does not necessarily affect the deductible contribution limit.

I find the Search feature to be very useful. In this case, I remembered there was a prior discussion thread on rounding, but did not remember whether it was exactly on point. So I used "round" or "rounding" as my search word. Using "401(a)(26)" as a search word may or may not be successful. The key is being creative with the search word, and trying more than one.

I'm curious. Anyone had any first-hand experience with this, that you would be willing to relate? That is, anyone gone to the judge to say you think the divorce is a sham?

Does anyone ever?

I think that's why they use the term qualified to describe the DRO.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=26640