david rigby

Maybe it's just me, I would not do any of the above until I read the plan document to determine what it permits and/or requires.

... and the plan sponsor should always want the ability to point at something, "See, this is how much you put in, and that is how much we put in." A fundamental rule in consulting (but often lacking in recordkeeping and/or TPAs) is: No employee benefit is worth much if it's not communicated properly.

While the above advice is reasonable, it may be prudent to (proactively) let the participant know what you are doing and why.

Not to beat a dead horse: not all divorce lawyers are familiar with QDROs. Make sure yours is.

Have you contacted the agency? HR Department?

Hojo's comment is the most obvious answer, but there might be others. The best action is to direct the "WHY" question to the company's reps. If it's not too personal, please let us know the answer.

Rather than the sponsor being on the hook for the "correct taxes", it might be on the hook for the 20% default withholding.

And there are other things to ask about (whether or not it seems likely): loans, QDROs, hardship withdrawals ...

What do the contracts say?

When a QDRO awards something for child support, the tax liability is the responsibility of the payor, not the recipient. To me, that sounds like a child support payment (yes, a new QDRO will be required) must be made in cash, not rollover, and the ex-wife (in this case) would get a 1099R. But I could be wrong.

Automatic COLAs are very rare; I've seen only a few; they exist much more in the govt plan arena. In my current situation, there are 2 such plans in the office, one of which is a non-profit, spun-off from a local government (ie, the govt plan had a COLA). Ad hoc COLAs are even more rare; in my 4+ decades, I've seen only one, not recently.

"There is no passion like that of a functionary for his function." - Georges Clemenceau

Peter, sometimes I look here when needing a rough estimate: https://www.dietrichannuity.com/, but this represents net settlement rates, usually for events such as DB plan close-outs. Is that relevant to your Q?

I vote Yes to posting of legitimate RFPs.

Could B adopt the plan?

Sorry, no expert. You might consider looking for a domestic relations attorney in a city near the border, such as Buffalo, Toronto, Detroit, Windsor, etc. Attorney website might have information related to your specific need.

Oops, maybe my statement is hasty. Read the links in this discussion: https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/64109-employer-has-been-notified-of-invalid-ssns/

Is there any possibility this information, assuming it's actually confirmed as fact, could indicate the person was never entitled, under the terms of the Plan, to become an employee and/or participant? (BTW, there are some prior discussion threads on this issue. Use the Search feature.)

Might be some prior discussion on that topic. For example, https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/64575-pbgc-missing-participants-program/

Data as of Sept 30, 2020 (Monday) seventh month-end after beginning of Coved-19 pandemic/isolation Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial CorporateAaa NA 2.32 2.32Aa 2.68 2.36 2.52A 2.91 2.79 2.85Baa 3.25 3.62 3.44 Avg 2.95 2.77 2.86 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield AveragesShort-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.21Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 0.44 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 1.26 Observation: (1) Comparing the Avg rates to 6 months prior, current rates are about 65-80 points lower. (2) Comparing the Avg rates to 12 months prior, current rates are about 50 points lower.

Duplicate posts. Let's put replies in the other one: https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/66679-death-of-sole-trustee/&tab=comments#comment-308142

I think the waiver of filing is a regulatory statement, not a statute. In that case, there is no change to the requirement to timely make and document any plan contributions. The SB is part of that process. In other words, follow Effen's advice.

At the risk of "being picky", with an extended due date of January 1, 2021, the "mailbox rule" is often used as proof of compliance with a statutory or regulatory due date: having a postmark by the date (there might be exceptions). There are no January 1 postmarks. If it were me advising a plan sponsor, I would point out the value of a 12/31/2020 postmark or wire transfer.

IMHO, including the date (i.e., the original date of the document) in the file name helps.

Perhaps this forum will help you. https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/forum/24-operating-a-tpa-or-consulting-firm/