david rigby

Isn't this question already answered in the plan provisions? If ambiguous (could be, but should not), what precedent has been set?

http://www.juiceenewsdaily.com/1104/news/y...vard_prank.html

Agree with Appleby. Look around and you will see many recent examples of "masked" SSNs, which can be as simple as blanking out the first 5 digits.

Perhaps the court (or maybe the ex-spouse's attorney) is aware of pre-emption, which is why a court order also restraining the participant from applying for benefits. Possible? Whether or not the order to the plan is valid, if the participant does not apply for benefits, the plan does nothing. ??

Purchase? Will this do? http://www.benefitslink.com/pr/detail.php?id=38419 http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=96461,00.html

I'm not aware of that condition in the IRC or the regulations. Ask the auditor to prove it.

, assuming we are talking about ERISA plans.

I agree with Blinky. That is the correct revenue ruling, which can be read here: http://www.taxlinks.com/rulings/findinglist/revrulmaster.htm

Reasonable points, but it does not follow (in all cases) that "...employees should properly feel devalued..."

True, but the comments are not meant to imply replacing a payroll system, just using it properly, and in accord with plan provisions. Too many seem to treat the latter as a nuisance.

Similar, but both terms are used inconsistently. Better approach might be to specify: - the frequency of the periodic payment (monthly, quarterly, annual) and - whether it has a term certain (such as ten years) or is a life annuity.

Yeah, and please remember there is a significant difference between "spinoff" and "rollover".

Don't expect many attorneys to go after punitive damages unless deep pockets are visible.

As QDROphile has implied, you need not be bound by your payroll system. The mechanics of payroll deduction should permit a "true-up", thus permitting participants to reach the 402g limit. Also, check plan provisions carefully; it is possible prior administration (that is, limiting the deductions) has not been in accord with the plan document.

February 2005. http://www.cyberisa.com/erisa_book_form.htm

Good comments from Frank. A minor point: sometimes these situations have a simplified view of actuarial assumptions. For example, if the comp for A is greater than the 401(a)(17) limit and significant to all other compensation, a salary scale might be ignored. In this case, and with the IA method, that assumption might not be the best approach. Try it both ways.

Belgarath's comments are important, and well stated. Let me add another: if the employer has been engaging in the action summarized in the original post, there may be bigger problems looming, such as the financial viability of the company. It would probably be prudent to proceed toward getting the plan "straight", perhaps in a polite "non-audit" manner.

Don’t mean to imply “get lost”, rather suggesting a place to begin. Reading the SPD will provide frogman some help, whether or not we specify what he should look for. But, try this: the SPD might give some information related to the deposit of employee contributions (and employer contributions, if applicable): when, where, etc. It may not be extremely detailed, but the SPD is the place to start. In addition, the SPD will give some information about the plan's claim procedure. Is this a "claim"? I don't know, but read it and find out. The Form 5500 requires reporting of delinquent employee contributions. See http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_compliance_5500.html As a plan participant, frogman can request a copy of the 5500 for all years in question. BTW, your employer can charge you a per-page copying charge for this. Also, look here for more information http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/consumer_info_pension.html

Re-read a copy of the plan's Summary Plan Description (SPD).

I'm shocked, shocked that you could believe such a thing! Do you really think benefits managers have that kind of authority?

Perhaps this is oversimplifying, but I disagree with the plan going to court here, or asking for tax records, etc. The important points should be - the plan defines who is eligible for a benefit, - the plan administrator should have procedures for documentation, - the plan has claims procedures. It is the responsibility of the PA to follow them, which might include providing the claimant a copy. Follow the plan.

Probably wise to make sure the plan uses its own claim procedures first, as outlined in plan provisions and administrative procedures.

As you state, the ball is in her court. Generally, a plan may (and should) establish reasonable documentation requirements before authorizing any distribution. For example, it is probably common to require a copy of a death certificate before paying any benefit which is triggered on death. A birth certificate can also be required to prove age, and a marriage license similarly. What documentaion accepted is up to the plan administator. For example, do you require certified copies of the documentian? This is a procedure of plan administration, not of plan provisions. Procedures should be written, and applied equally (or is that "equivalently"). The procedure may also include what to do if fraud is suspected.

Can a pension plan (not clear if it is a qualified plan) lend money to another plan? Why would it do so? Why would a welfare plan need to borrow money? How can a welfare plan repay a loan?

I most definitely will not comment on that or any other firm. However, you can also consider other firms. In addition, you can search for pension actuaries here. Click on "Search the Directory".