david rigby

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.

Hey I'm just guessing, but I'll bet your plan document defines how contributions are allocated, and then it defines how earnings are allocated.

Data as of April 30, 2020 (Thursday) second month-end after beginning of Coved-19 pandemic/isolation Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 2.38 2.38 Aa 2.71 2.43 2.57 A 2.95 2.97 2.96 Baa 3.50 4.24 3.87 Avg 3.05 3.01 3.03 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.28 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 0.47 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 1.14 Observation: (1) Comparing the Avg rates to 6 months prior, current rates are 30-35 points lower. (2) Comparing the Avg rates to 12 months prior, current rates are about 110 points lower.

My experience is that accrued income is included. I've also included that information in the ASC715/FAS87 assets. Probably, the important rule is "Be consistent". If considering a change for funding purposes, don't forget to review the relevant Rev Proc w/r/t to above advice. If considering a change for accounting purposes, get advance input from the auditor.

Charging a reasonable fee may be appropriate; what does the service agreement say?

IMHO, you should direct your question to the actuary.

Wow. As I recall, there was very little guidance (maybe none) in the 80s. The first item I recall was Revenue Procedure 95-51 (I'll post a copy or link if I can find one), then Rev. Proc. 98-10 (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp98-10.pdf), and then Rev. Proc. 99-45 (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-99-45.pdf). Much better consolidation and advice in Rev. Proc. 2000-40 (https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb00-42.pdf).

Let's go back to the original question. The above advice is correct, but might be (from your perspective) somewhat disjointed. Your question is answered with another question: Does the employee have a distributable event under the terms of the plan? (That term typically refers to death, disability, retirement, other separation of employment. Those terms might be defined in the document itself. Read it. If you don't have access to the plan document, get a copy of the Summary Plan Description.)

Don't overlook the (apparent) partial termination in 2020.

What does "processing" mean? Assuming the form is complete, why would you not mail it?

Clarification needed. Is the ER stating the plan is frozen (or frozen to new participation)? If so, the effective date of freeze will be relevant. Does this quote mean something else? The participant needs to get a copy of the Summary Plan Description (SPD).

There is no "prior year filing".