david rigby

That sounds like it might be another QDRO, rather than an amended one. Make sure you seek competent legal advice that has experience in QDROs.

My understanding is that 1099's are issued for distributions, but the payment you describe is a transfer. No 1099 needed. You may want to review the 1099R instructions, just in case. Also, I believe there is a previous Q&A on point, somewhere in this Forum.

Read here.

I recommend re-reading Effen's advice/comments. A few other points as corollary to his advice: All above discussion appears to assume the plan is subject to ERISA. Some plans, notably those sponsored by a governmental organization, are exempt from most provisions of ERISA, including QDROs, although some voluntarily include ERISA-like provisions in the plan document. If not already done, this is the first question you need to answer. (State law has much more impact on governmental plans than on ERISA plans.) Any beneficiary election for life insurance, 401(k) plan, stock, etc. will not be relevant to the pension plan unless the pension plan is specifically included. Divorce may or may not automatically change a prior beneficiary election. QJSA means "the spouse is the beneficiary"; this means a QJSA for an unmarried participant is automatically something else (probably a life-only annuity or a life annuity with a 10-year guarantee). However, some plans allow a participant to elect another option called "contingent annuity" that functions like a QJSA but allows a non-spouse contingent annuitant (and such person must be specified at the time of retirement). Terminology can be important. Likely, you need legal advice, quickly. I suggest using an attorney with ERISA experience (in my observation, divorce/family law attorneys usually don't measure up). My own database does not include any Ohio attorneys, but Effen lives in Western PA and can probably recommend some attorneys in your area.

Depends. What is the definition of Normal Retirement Age (not Normal Retirement Date)?

Look for a new CPA?

Perhaps this is unrelated to the terms of the plan document, but is a problem/error with how this deferral amount is being reflected within the payroll system. Check to see what system code(s) are being used. If those codes are correct, then ask the payroll vendor.

In case a reader is unsure about the above italicized reference, the OP is quoting IRS Reg. 1.415(e)-3(ii)(B). I wonder what the Plan says.

Just my opinion, but that does not conform to the definition within ASC715, although it could (accidentally) provide a reasonable rate. Have you reviewed that definition? However, in the real world, the discount rate selected might be a compromise, usually involving input from the actuary, the auditor, and the sponsor. Note that some auditors don't exhibit much flexibility. ?

The Plan is required to have QDRO procedures, and procedures must be "reasonable". Maybe it's just me, but 3 years does not seem reasonable. The DOL has 3 different FAQ documents about QDROs here. The Pension Rights Center has some information and links here. You probably need an attorney who is well-versed in QDROs.

Engage an attorney? BTW, if you seek legal advice, and that person isn't intimately familiar with QDROs, keep looking.

Caution, while it might be "...not enough to make this a controlled group as a whole...", it's possible some of the "...variety of businesses..." are a controlled group. This probably does not change Luke's advice, but you will probably want to retain documentation of which companies are/are not members of a CC.

Data as of December 31, 2019 (Tuesday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.04 3.04 Aa 3.26 3.02 3.14 A 3.44 3.36 3.40 Baa 3.76 4.03 3.90 Avg 3.49 3.36 3.43 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.61 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.79 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.30 Observation: (1) Comparing the Avg rates to 6 months prior, current rates are about 30 points lower. (2) Comparing the Avg rates to 12 months prior, current rates are about 90-100 points lower.

Not sure about the meaning here. ?

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.