david rigby

IMHO, it was just sloppy to provide a LS estimate knowing the interest rates are incorrect.

In addition to Effen's comments, also consider whether there is any ability to "manage" the timing in the future. Suppose the stability period is the plan year (for example, ending 06/30), and the employee is retiring effective July 1, that means the interest rates should change for any LS paid on or after July 1. However, if the payment can be made on June 30, then you can use the prior year's rates. If the EE initiates a retirement application 3-4 months in advance, there should be sufficient time to address this Q; however, if the EE initiates a retirement application very late ("I'm retiring at the end of next week"), you will (probably) know that all the paperwork cannot be completed prior to June 30. And be consistent.

Could be, but the OP indicates DOD occurred after DOT. Very unusual, and likely not a good idea, to extend vesting provisions after DOT. BTW, the title of this thread uses the phrase "death benefit". Since the severance of employment appears to be what has triggered a distributable event, the plan administrator should make it clear that phrase is not correct. However, check the plan document!

On? ?

Agree with all comments from @Bill Presson. I wonder if the new actuary knows this client has significant arrear payments. ? Does your service agreement help answer your question?

There are 2 or 3 prior discussion threads that might be relevant to you (or they might be out of date) in this forum. Try the Search box, making sure to click "Search in this forum". I suggest a search term of "tribal", or something similar.

Do you have an attorney who is well-versed in QDROs?

The plan defines "compensation", right?

Perhaps just before, or just after, you are doing your arithmetic, please also check to see what the plan document says.

Data as of May 29, 2020 (Friday) third month-end after beginning of Coved-19 pandemic/isolation Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial CorporateAaa NA 2.41 2.41Aa 2.83 2.47 2.65A 3.11 3.03 3.07Baa 3.47 4.05 3.76Avg 3.14 2.99 3.07 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield AveragesShort-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.23Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 0.46 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 1.25 Observation: (1) Comparing the Avg rates to 6 months prior, current rates are 150-160 points lower. (2) Comparing the Avg rates to 12 months prior, current rates are about 110-120 points lower.

What does your attorney say? (We don't really need to know what your attorney says. You need to know what your attorney says. If you need to get an attorney, or a different one, make sure that person is well-versed in QDROs.)

I'm just guessing here: Probably, the original was a draft. (Not unusual. It's a good idea to get Plan Administrator review of a draft.) However, if the draft was OK'd, but no one ever got a final order (ie, from the court), then the plan/plan administrator had nothing to do. Maybe your attorney dropped the ball in the follow-up?

Not enough info. Clearly, you need legal advice; make sure that attorney is experienced in QDRO's. More to the point, that attorney should be experienced in the procedures applicable to the federal systems. Technically, the federal systems are not covered by QDRO rules, but do recognize other documents. (There may be some practitioners reading here that can offer some specific attorney recommendations, but do your own research also.)

Possibly, Mike refers to IRC 7525?

Maybe it's not a real (ie, qualified) plan?

Excellent question. Quote from the instructions for Line 15 of the SB (emphasis added):

Duplicate posts are usually difficult to manage. Go here:

Fidelity would have acted on a QDRO, rather than a divorce decree (since the latter is usually not structured to encompass the former). Your first step is to review the terms of the QDRO. If it does not conform with the intent in the divorce decree, you should investigate why? who did it? who reviewed it? etc. (Don't blame Fidelity until you determine what the relevant documents said.)

Just my opinion: your good intentions (ie, let's find out what is actually true) may be more than you need to do or should do. It appears you doubt his statement so you want to "dig further". However his statement (in writing) is the documentation you need. If (later) it becomes apparent that he did lie, that documentation points the finger at him, not you. You do not need to police his (possible) lie(s).

Wondering, anyone seeing (or acting on) situations where the 1/1/2020 funded ratio is "high" (90% or above) and the plan sponsor is instructing the actuary not to issue the 2020 AFTAP certification, thus letting the default percentages apply? Could be useful when (1) the plan allows lump sums greater than $5,000 and (2) the sponsor is trying to save cash in the plan very soon after the assets have taken a dive. Any other thoughts on the process? the communication? etc?

"The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you". Neil deGrasse Tyson The same principle applies to Congress, statutes, and regulations.

IMHO, I would never recommend a sponsor adopt such provisions; too many unknowns. "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." Niels Bohr

You should probably do your own estimate. This might help: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/tax-withholding-estimator

In addition, please edit your original post to correct the faulty date.

Not trying to be snarky, but you may be overthinking this. Just my opinion. 1. Who cares why. Answer the Q. 2. Who cares about relevance. Answer the Q. 3. Yes.