david rigby

That would be as specified in the plan. Competent drafting will already have included the answer to your question in the document itself. If the plan is silent, the sponsor could amend the plan (either way for clarity), but consult competent ERISA attorney first to make sure no violation of 411(d)(6).

Leave it alone? Ask when the surrender charge (that's what it is) will be reduced to a much lower level or even zero?

"Waiting for part 2" is not strong enough. I am very concerned that anyone would impersonate an actuary, even if only on paper (is that an oxymoron?). As far as I am concerned, this constitutes fraud, and should not go unchallenged. My profession's (as well as my own) integrity is at stake. I would be interested in hearing views of others, especially as to whether there is any course of action with "teeth".

I'm with SteveC on this one.

If the plan does not require spousal consent, why does anyone care about a (possible) forgery? More interesting might be whether there was a distributable event under the plan.

From the Joint Board website: http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/actuaries/artic...0.html#standing

MGB’s comments are correct. The table I posted above is from IRS Revenue Ruling 2001-62, and is derived from a 1994 table. I assumed that was the nature of wmyer's request, but perhaps that is incorrect. See the 1995 edition of the Transactions of the Society of Actuaries for these articles: http://library.soa.org/library/tsa/1990-95/TSA95V4721.pdf http://library.soa.org/library/tsa/1990-95/TSA95V4720.pdf http://library.soa.org/library/tsa/1990-95/TSA95V4722.pdf

Try this GAR94_proj_to_2000_Unisex.txt

Probably not significant to your inquiry, but if wife is 54 in 2004, how will she be 59-1/2 in November 2005? I don't really know what is going on here, but it sounds as if someone is asking to violate the terms of the plan and/or the QDRO. Maybe it's just me.

Tax treaties http://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations...d=96739,00.html Note that there are three "UK" items. Also, http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=23621

One hopes that the QDRO already addresses this perhaps with cross reference to the plan document. IMHO, a DRO that does not address this possibility should not be accepted as a QDRO.

Perhaps the issue is not pre- and post-retirement mortality (or interest rates). Proval handles that issue pre- and post-decrement.

Huh?

I'm shocked! Shocked!

IRS Publication 590. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590.pdf Start on page 11.

This website is a great starting point for articles, referrals, publications, etc. Click the logo in the upper left corner to search the entire website. A simple approach is to get some quotes from reputable insurance companies, using the best estimate of the full account balance, expected date of "purchase" and expected date of annuity commencement. Then compare to withdrwals from IRA. See tables in this IRS publication: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590.pdf. (Call 1-800-tax-form to get a copy.)

One or both plans may already have some co-ordination provisions; no action needed.

Obviously, you don't have enough work.

Please clarify what would such a "rider" do?

I believe the 12/15/04 date refers to requirements for the 2003 plan year, which should have been made no later than 9/15/04, assuming a CY plan year. If not cumbersome, and if the Plan Administrator agrees, I put the actual amounts and dates of contributions, but it does not seem to be required. Usually, the PA does not want to encourage more questions, so giving that information in the notice might help.

I don't know what this means, but I hope it does not refer to the TPA deciding whether a DRO is qualified.

I agree with Alf. This can be fixed prospectively, but the proposed retroactive fix likely will violate the terms of the plan and 411(d)(6).

Perhaps. I suggest the sponsor should have a conversation with its ERISA attorney first. The attorney will initiate the "interaction" with the IRS.

What does this mean? He is not employed "under a plan". Just because the employer is acquired, that does not mean anything changes with respect to the plan.

Facts and circumstances. Given the statements as presented (still to be determined if they are facts), IMHO, the answer is “probably”. But circumstances change; difficult to determine in advance, and without more information. Several prior discussion threads on this topic. You might try reviewing: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?a...ation%26quot%3B