david rigby

I agree. It seems an important point in determining what is a "professional". Might not be fair, but that is not the point.

Since the original post touched on so many different issues, it is difficult to respond, except to say: - there is ambiguity in original post as whether there is more than one plan; - there is no requirement that all employees have exactly the same benefits, whether in one plan or more; - the plan provisions are what they are, whether or not they seem "fair" to everyone; - I very much doubt you are only "...30% in the white collar pension..." if you are "...totally vested in the blue collar pension...". However, it is also possible that you are using the term "vested" in a manner other than its usual meaning.

The relevant section of PBGC opinon letter 76-106:

Some prior discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=5375 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=20783 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=21119 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=16599

Actuaries use a different phrase for the acronym CPA (and no, I won't post it).

I agree, there was probably a way to avoid this. At this point, it seems to be moot, but maybe not, so have your actuary look at the situation.

... and the organization pushing it just happens to be a financial institution where the participant can have his IRA. BTW, don't be surprised if some insurance or annuity product is present.

Very difficult to determine "fault". You may want to review some of the other postings in this same message board. In a nutshell, Verizon's job is to administer the plan properly. One small part of that is determining if they will accept a proposed QDRO submitted by you or attorney. Applicable statute is Internal Revenue Code 414(p). Note that Verizon may accept as valid a QDRO that may have small defects that have no bearing on the ability to properly interpret and administer it; but that is still their decision. Likely, they see draft QDRO's every day, so they have well-defined procedures.

Is this broker 9 years old?

I'm no expert, but you clearly need to have this conversation with a qualified attorney. If the prospective attorney is not intimately familiar with a QDRO, then keep looking. 1. n/a 2. Yes. Bell Atlantic and GTE merge 07/03/2000 to form Verizon. 3. Discuss with attorney. 4. ? 5. Your wife may have a copy, provided by her attorney. If not, see if the records of the (now deceased) attorney may have a copy. 6. Not sure what this means, but it sounds promising. Discuss with attorney. 7. Compromise may be possible, for example if the approximate amount from 1992 is known. However, practicality of dealing with old records will be important. 8. EBSA cannot help, except you should review the QDRO literature on their website. 9. Might be a problem. Don't know if the ESOP still exists. (It could have been merged into another plan.) I have a copy of the SAR's recently sent out by Verizon; no ESOP included. 10. Discuss with attorney. 11. When you/attorney write to them, you can request a phone number, but don't hold your breath. This address is included in the SAR booklet mentioned above: Stephanee Wallace Executive Director - Benefits Verizon Services Corporation 750 Canyon Drive Coppell, TX 75019 12. My best to you all. BTW, there are 4 defined contribution plans and 18 defined benefit plans for which Verizon produced an SAR. You may need to be careful with identifying the correct plan(s) by name.

Blinky is correct. More directly, you reference the "maximum of $165K". The $165K maximum is not a lump sum limit, but refers to a maximum annual benefit that can be paid by a defined benefit plan. The lump sum equivalent of such amount could be well over $1 million. So, as Blinky suggests, there are apples and oranges in this discussion, and it appears you can ignore all comments about the maximum. This also means that if your lump sum, re-calculated for payment in 2005, exceeds $165K, do not let anyone tell you it must be reduced to that amount.

Well "discretionary" certainly is an important word. But look at the original post: "...an additional 3% PS contribution..." If that is the goal, then why would the 1000-hour rule (or anything else) prohibit such amendment? The original Q seems to be asking if such amendment would be discriminatory, which is usually a question related to 401(a)(4), but most of the above answers seem to be focusing on 411(d)(6). Accordingly, if the affected individuals are all NHCEs, as described in original post, then the proposed amendment will not fail 401(a)(4).

Disagree. Just because some or all participants have earned the right to an allocation, does not mean you cannot still amend the plan to provide another level (or class) of benefit.

Rev.Ruling 81-114 includes this (emphasis added): Is it possible that the local law does require a trust to have a corpus? Also, it may be that the financial institution requires a corpus.

You can probably find other similar discussion threads with the Search feature. I suggest using "real estate" as the keyword.

The instructions to the 5500 say nothing about a change in plan name. Just do it.

Ah! The sales process!

You’ve probably already seen these, but just in case: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=17215 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=5466 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=16104 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=19804 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=14313 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=5373 Perhaps, the simplest approach would be to make a distribution “to the extent funded”. I think it is common that plan provisions would support that.

Probably. As of today, it appears to be difficult (perhaps impossible) to completely answer your questions. Nevertheless: (a) Your given rate of 5.07% is the December 2003 30-year TSR given by the IRS. It is an average determined over the entire month of December. http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=96450,00.html Assuming you will need the December 2004 rate, that rate will be available about a week into January. (b) Likely. The lump sum present value is supposed to be as of the actual distribution date. While there are practicalities involved in a difference of a few days, that does not seem to apply here, where the difference is a month or more. You did not state, but it appears the plan document uses a stability period of one year (the plan year = calendar year?), and a lookback period of one month. Thus, all payments made in 2004 would use the December 2003 rate, and all payments made in 2005 would use the December 2004 rate. The point is that the plan already defines how to do this, so check the plan provisions carefully. © Maybe; check plan provisions. Likely not. (d) Again, check plan provisions. Don’t forget to use the plan’s definitions of actuarial equivalent, which might mean that the participant’s age is recalculated at a new distribution date, in addition to the change in interest rate.

Good grief. GBurns, my view of this "conversation" is that you have not yet responded to QDROphile's first comment. Likely, more than one reader would be interested in the reasoning behind your first comment. Thank you.

Probaby not, but there are differing opinions. Use the Search feature to find the many prior discussion threads on this topic. Suggested key word: "severance pay".

...and ask whether the company is taking steps to ensure that future mistakes are caught before action (sometimes referred to as "checking your work").

Once again...

I believe the regs. under 411(d)(6) are numbered 1.411(d)(4). No explict cite handy.

I make it a point to agree with QDROPhile and MGB, especially when they are right, as here. As mbozek states, there may be special circumstances that the EE could pursue (perhaps a PLR, but who cares?), but that is not the plan's or the sponsor's business. Since the EE was partially vested, likely the $ amount is not large, so the benefit would seem to be small. W/r/t the attempt to "...assist her with this situation", let's not forget the IRS sometimes take a dim view of anything that might smell of fraud. This is a result of not doing rollover; it is employee's problem.