david rigby

Here is the thread mentioned above. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=6617

When all else fails, try cash. You might also review this thread: http://209.207.198.244/showthread.php?threadid=1805 [Edited by pax on 09-04-2000 at 09:21 AM]

Sounds like well-reasoned advice from Phil and Hank. But a followup, has the ABA or any other legal organization, created a "model QDRO"?

Yes, but watch out for top-heavy.

I agree with Beth.

This is the way I try to summarize this rule: 1. Any benefit whose value exceeds the involuntary cashout limit may not be distributed prior to Normal Retirement without the *participant's* approval. 2. Any plan where the benefit is payable in an annuity form must offer (at least) one J&S option, and the spouse's approval then gets added to (1) above. Yes the Plan must be formally amended to change the limit. Note that the $3500 or $5000 is the largest amount that a plan can use to define its involuntary cashout limit. Smaller amounts are permitted.

New withholding requirement for North Carolina, effective January 1, 2001. http://www.dor.state.nc.us/practitioner/in...es/pd-00-2.html

Sorry if this is stupid comment, but what about deferring payment into the next year?

Not disagreeing with the prior posts, but I'll add another perspective. People in their 20s do not need to be focusing primarily on saving for retirement. Most people have different needs at different points in their lives, and saving is no exception to that rule. Sure, put some aside now, but don't put it all in a vehicle which is intended for retirement savings. Put some aside for the shorter term needs, especially saving for a house and college education for children. Yes, I know that there are vehicles that can be used for both, but what I am discussing primarily is the "mindset" of long-term vs. short-term. Also, don't forget, that you should put some aside to anticipate being a one-earner family with kids. It does not matter if you think that won't happen: odds are very high that it will happen, or that you (more likely, your wife, the mother of your children) will wish it could happen. BTW, congratulations. Marriage is the basic building block of society. I'm always glad to see others joining in.

Try the item immediately before "1998 Pakg 5500 Package 5500 Cover and Y2K Alert", 22 page set of instructions.

It depends. The plan provisions in effect at the time of severance of employment (for whatever reason) are likely what will govern. If the person was vested at that date, then (assuming it is the same plan) that vested benefit should still exist. Most plans contain language, often contained in a preamble, something like this: "..for any participant who terminated employment prior to the effective date of this plan/restatement, the benefit amount and all rights and features thereof will be determined by the terms of the plan as in effect at such termination of employment, and the provisions of this plan/restatement will not apply, unless expressly stated otherwise herein...."

Non-attorney opinion, but as an actuary involved in administration of govt. plans. I agree with Carol's comments. You can certainly elect to have many ERISA provisions in your govt. plan even though not required. But it does tend to complicate the day-to-day administration. For example, some (many?) plans have EE contributions. The rules under IRC 411 for determining the "employee-provided benefit" do not apply to govt. plans, so why complicate the administration with those rules. They may even be in conflict with state law. In my opinion, the most useful ERISA rule to extend to a govt. plan is the SPD requirement. The ERISA goal of disclosure and meaningful communication is worthwhile.

Not so sure about that. What does the plan say? It is usually a good idea to have an affirmative beneficiary designation rather than using "the estate" as the default. Notice that the employee had such a designation (4 kids).

I think you need to be careful. My recollection is that the regs permit you to charge your cost, but not more than 25 cents per page.

So what if they whine! If they can't find the time to do it right now, ask them when they are going to find the time to do it over.

BTW, IRC 404 does not permit a deduction to be based on a violation of 415. I think it is subsection (j) of 404 [Edited by pax on 08-24-2000 at 02:58 PM]

Perhaps being discrete is not the best approach. If the union is hoping to entice others to join, then shouldn't they be engaged in full disclosure? You might try this site for 5500 information: http://www.freeerisa.com/customer/login.asp

I think that the J&S rules of IRC 417 will require a "yes" answer to your last question, but I would be interested in other opinions.

Interesting. Is this comp included in W-2? If so, would that by itself answer the question?

Instructions to the Schedule B, Line 3 , include this sentence: "Show only contributions actually made to the plan by the date Schedule B is signed." I have copies of the instructions back to 1993, and all have the same sentence. I would accept as proper documentation items 1, 2, or 3. Item 4 is not acceptable. Written documentation might also be acceptable from another source, such as auditor, but that seems less likely. To me, the bottom line is that the documentation should be written (and NO! the new law on electronic signatures will not change my opinion on this). BTW, I have never heard of a client that had a problem with this. The 1999 Form 5500 and instructions are here: http://www.dol.gov/dol/pwba/public/pubs/fo...rms/fm99inx.htm [Edited by pax on 08-21-2000 at 09:33 AM]

Yes, vesting service continues. But, no you do not then "transfer" the account or benefit to the second plan, unless both plans anticipate that action. Actually, this is the perfect example of why the ERISA vesting rules were created in 1974. In fact, service both before and after the transfer will generally count towards vesting in *both* plans.

No argument with the comments by Sdolce, but a word of caution. "...the mortality is fixed by Rev. Rul. 95-6." Based on earlier posts by jlf, it is likely that his reference to "...the Retirement System" is a governmental plan. The relevant sections of the Internal Revenue Code (and regs) generally do not apply (at least not automatically under federal law) to governmental plans. So, the plan terms, and any relevant state laws, should be reviewed to determine the proper definitions of "actuarial equivalent". BTW, my guess is that the single premium cost of a $50,000 annuity at age 60, if purchased from an insurance company on the open market today, would be more than $500K. I would guess at least $600K.

Or you can go to the source: http://www4.enron.com/corp/jobs/benefits.html Apparently, Enron has a cash balance plan but the summary is very brief. BTW, it is possible, but I have never seen a cash balance plan that did not have a lump sum option.

Non-attorney opinion: I think you are correct that governmental plans are exempt from all of IRC 411, thus permitting other statutes to apply. Those are usually state laws, rather than local ordinances. However, notice IRC 411(e)(2), which steers you to the IRC provisions in effect immediately prior to ERISA.

Non-lawyer opinion: a benefit in pay status cannot be changed by anybody (retiree, spouse, plan sponsor, court, etc.), unless specifically authorized by the plan. Most plans would not want to include such a provision, as correctly suggested by QDROphile, due to adverse selection. I believe that the proposed change to a J&S benefit is contrary to the original intent of ERISA. The only situation I have ever encountered where the form of benefit was changed was a plan termination, with the plan being amended to permit the retiree (with proper spousal consent) a one-time option to elect a lump sum payment. If the retiree declined the election, then the plan would purchase an annuity to provide the balance of the promised annuity payments.