david rigby

Interesting. Sorry, I don't have any more info that might help. Perhaps a question to the IRS might help, including the specific issue mentioned in your last post.

I think this thread should help. Be sure to read to the end. I'm not aware of different rules for employees who are participants in a multi-employer plan. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=10562

This would appear to violate the regs under IRC 411(d)6). See IRS Reg. 1.411(d)-4, Q&A-1 (B)(1). http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml...26cfrv5_00.html

Just to be careful, is someone suggesting the GUST restatement date could be effective January 1, 2002? Does not make sense to me. Is it a problem?

Lump sum? Usually this is not calculated unless someone expects it to be paid. Was it paid? If so, then you have (probably) received the entire value of your benefit. (Note, there are a few unusual circumstances where you might have received a lump sum but a portion of your benefit remains, to be paid at retirement age.) If you have received a statement of a benefit payable at age 65, then that is probably all you will get. You should probably consider it your responsibility to keep the company informed about your current mailing address and to notify the company when you are ready to commence benefits. If you are eligible to commence benefits at some early retirement age, then it will be your job to notify them. (They would probably appreciate about a 3-4 month advance notice.)

Interesting. A corollary to that is IRC 417(a)(2)(B), where the spouse cannot be located. The statute here refers only to the plan representative, with no reference to notary. This makes much sense; you don't want to rely on someone else to make that determinaition, and the notary would not want to do so. However, in situations similar to the above, where the plan representative is "carved out" of the spouse signoff procedure, the practicality of a "missing spouse" gets very tricky. Any ideas on this?

QDROphile has pointed us to the correct IRC citation. Note that the last phrase of that paragraph reads "... and is witnessed by a plan representative of a notary public...". My read is that the plan sponsor does not have an opportunity to specify only one of these choices in the plan document. Is that correct?

I am looking for some historical information on the unrounded wage base. Anyone have a source of this data?

A QDRO cannot change the terms of the plan, so it cannot force the plan to add a valuation date. Thus, the response to the QDRO might give the prior valuation amount and a statement that the plan investments are valued only once per plan year. However, the Plan might already contain language that permits the Plan Administrator (not the TPA) to order an additional valuation date. I'll leave it to others to decide if, and under what circumstances, that is a good idea.

Didn't work here either.

Try this link to ask a question: http://www.benefitslink.com/qa_columns/adv...questions.shtml

You must really be a (car) nut to own two Mavericks!

In the U.S., anyone can sue anyone for any reason. But is it likely to succeed? Is it worth the cost of litigation? etc.

I am helping a client prepare a filing for waiver of minimum funding standard. I find in Rev. Proc. 2001-8 a user fee of $2,050. Any aware of any subsequent changes to the user fee schedule?

Depends. Is this plan subject to IRC 410?

Such threats can be useful, but flexibility is also useful. As the prior post notes, a lump sum was paid in error, but the plan is willing to permit repayments monthly. This can go a long way toward solving the problem without rancor. However, it is also prudent to identify what will happen if the repayment stream is interrupted by death. There is not a single correct answer, just advisable that all parties know.

Assuming this plan is subject to ERISA, the"anti-cutback" provisions of IRC 411(d)(6) would apply to those who are participants as of the effective date of the amendment (or actual adoption date, if later). That is, there is no requirement that any special "grandfathering" apply to employees who have not yet become participants.

ERISA pre-emption does not apply to taxation of income at the state level. It is very likely that some states will not have brought their tax laws into agreement with EGTRRA. (This happens every time Congress makes a change.)

Perhaps some more information would help. Ages? Will the plan and company survive beyond the retirement of the older HCE? What "goals" do you have in mind?

I believe the Notice to Interested Parties is an advance notice that you are making a filing request with the IRS. If no filing request is made, it seems logical that no advance notice is relevant.

.....and if that lawyer does not know the meaning and significance of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, keep looking.

I would not know the details but I recall seeing many (dozens?) court cases where the answer was exactly that: sorry, this law does not apply because of ERISA pre-emption. End of discussion. Probably several of these originated in Mass. Perhaps even some were decided in federal court in Boston. Might be interesting to hear how the Mass. Secretary of State reacts to actual facts.

If it helps to have more than one vote, I agree.

No lawyer I, but it seems like a bad idea. Seems like the plan should stand on its own. But I await other opinions. I also ask a different question. Has anything like this happened before? If so, is there an administrative practice to state how it was handled? It may be that the plan will (should?) decide to eat the loss.

RCK's advice sounds good. One minor modification: when specifying the name of the new plan, it might be a good idea to describe it as the successor to the old plan. Yes, I know it's picky, but you rarely have too much documentation. For example, if the DRO is for a former employee who still has a benefit/account in the old plan, that employee may never have been an employee of the successor company. Just avoid the confusion.