david rigby

Just a point of clarification, in case it hasn't been clear: The court/judge provides a DRO. It is not a QDRO until the Plan Administrator approves it. For this reason, it's common that the parties/attorneys prepare a draft for review by the PA before going to the court. Sometimes, a second draft is needed.

For reference, has the new actuary contributed any suggested answers to your questions?

Just curious: is 401(a)(17) relevant?

Yeah but, …. we've seen lots of confusion about this. Sometimes, the participant/AP thinks a "separate interest" DB benefit is an "account". Better to ask than to assume. No disrespect intended, but I'm still not convinced the questioner knows the diff.

As implied above, might be relevant, especially to the time of payment: is the plan a defined benefit (DB) plan or defined contribution (DC) plan?

It depends on what the OP meant by "new". I read it to mean "new to him as recordkeeper/actuary", which is more correctly called "takeover". My interpretation may have been in error. Note that historical term and rehire dates might be important in any case.

All of it. I want all data elements for all employees in the database. Includes non-vested terms and deaths. No exclusions, no limitations. All historical comp, all historical hours. All term and rehire dates. If there are beneficiaries in-pay status, they should be provided with all the data elements of the (now deceased) employee/retiree; however, this is often not available, so you may have to wing it. Don't overlook any prior lump sum payments: get every data element on them also. If there are special transition amounts or prior minimums, make sure to obtain those, even if you think it's not relevant. If there are employee contributions, get each of the annual amounts. Also, the total with and without interest. If the PY is not equal to CY, make sure you know how the historical information was gathered: even if the plan defines comp/hours as PY-based, it might have been gathered as CY-based.

If "the partners" hired someone else during this "couple of years", it's possible such employee(s) should be covered by the plan.

Does this mean that some, but not all, of the participants were paid out?

Moody's did not publish results from November 29 (Friday), probably because it was a "short trading" day. Here are the results for the two prior days: Data as of November 27, 2019 (Wednesday, day before Thanksgiving Day) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 2.94 2.94 Aa 3.16 2.97 3.07 A 3.35 3.28 3.32 Baa 3.68 4.03 3.86 Avg 3.40 3.31 3.36 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.62 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.70 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.12 Data as of November 26, 2019 (Tuesday, two days before Thanksgiving Day) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 2.95 2.95 Aa 3.15 2.96 3.06 A 3.33 3.27 3.30 Baa 3.67 4.02 3.85 Avg 3.38 3.30 3.34 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.58 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.66 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.10

I wonder if "401k provider" refers to the entity holding the money (whether trustee or custodian). It seems very likely that the "provider" knows exactly what "CuseFan" stated. Maybe there is something else going on? Maybe there is concern over payment of fees? or some other outstanding issue. Just a hunch.

Not enough information. For example, Is this a DB plan? Was the QDRO applied against your benefit, or for your benefit? Did the PA explain the nature of the incorrect calculation? (if not, have you asked?) Etc.

Please, it's OK to share what you found. And the source.

I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Larry's assumption may be valid. However, it would be prudent to make sure you get adequate documentation of their error. First.

Aisle 7.

Miserable? Imagine the following situation: Participant takes the waiver form (in your first paragraph) to spouse, asking him/her to waive a portion in favor of Participant's children from prior marriage. Spouse objects. Now what? The point Larry advocates is to make this automatic, avoiding the "miserable" embarrassment between spouses.

Terminology can be important. Your use of the funds (rollover, pay off debt, buy a boat, etc.) is not relevant. What counts is why you got a payment. Every plan defines how and when someone can be paid. Most common are upon death, disability, retirement, or other severance of employment. Your narrative seems to omit all four of those. Did you receive a loan? a hardship distribution? something else? It's possible no "clawback" is needed, but better documentation of what/how your distribution was authorized.

Important: the plan will not pay you anything without a QDRO. Therefore, to determine whether you are entitled to anything, you may need an attorney who is well-versed in QDROs.

Data as of October 31, 2019 (Thursday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 2.99 2.99 Aa 3.16 2.99 3.08 A 3.33 3.30 3.32 Baa 3.67 4.06 3.87 Avg 3.39 3.34 3.37 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.50 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.59 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.09 Observation: Comparing the Avg rates to 12 months prior, current Bond rates are about 120 basis points lower. Comparing the Avg rates to 6 months prior, current Bond rates are about 75 basis points lower.

Maybe answering the questions above will also reveal "who screwed up". This would be relevant to determine who pays the attorney fees needed for guidance thru this mess.

No problem there. ? But seriously, what is the origin/backstory of this proposal?

Thread title fixed.

Just a warning about timing: the Form 5500 filing mentioned above will have a "delay". Example (assuming the plan year is calendar year): the filing for the 2018 plan year will be due no later than 10/15/2019. If the plan was created in 2019, the first filing is not yet due. If you are correct that the employer is lying about it, he may also be looking for ways to subvert the filing process (in which case, the above efast website might not be useful to you.)

If the buyer creates its own (new) plan, it can recognize service with the seller for purposes of vesting. And probably should.