david rigby

One wonders if there is only one (NOT plural) executive behind this.

Lots of moving parts here. "It depends."

Data as of 07/31/2019 (Wednesday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.26 3.26 Aa 3.46 3.28 3.37 A 3.59 3.65 3.62 Baa 3.93 4.36 4.15 Avg 3.66 3.64 3.65 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.81 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.91 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.41 Observation: Comparing the Avg rates to 12 months prior, current rates are about 65 points lower. Comparing the Avg rates to 6 months prior, current rates are about 60 points lower.

Might be time to re-think the waiting period. Consider why the current definition exists and ask whether it makes sense w/r/t/ the characteristics of the workforce. Consider a shorter period for everyone, such as 30 days.

Is this "continuing education"? Many professions have CE requirements. IMHO, that expense belongs to the individual. Is the "Trustee" an employee of the Trust? Not likely, so having such expense paid (or reimbursed) by the Trust is not a valid plan expense.

(1) Is your proposal non-discriminatory? (2) On the surface, it appears to favor NHCEs, so it should have no problems. But, check the details with an eye on (1).

Consider the possibility that this statement was in the document precisely because someone did an analysis. Look for that first.

Are you sure this "checking account" is actually part of plan assets?

Consider amending the plan to add LS option.

IMHO, it's very unlikely anyone preparing that form will EVER ask to see a Social Security card.

Short plan years were discussed in the proposed reg published in the Federal Register 04/15/08. Also included in the final reg published in the Federal Register 09/09/15. The latter can also be found in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2015-39, found here: https://www.irs.gov/irb/2015-39_IRB. Did your research agree with this?

Maybe follow this link https://benefitslink.com/about.html, and ask for creation of such a Message Board?

As implied by QDROphile, the origin of "retirement" is similar to other items (such as "working", or "terminated") in that early statutes/regs/common language assumed a "binary" relationship. For example, in most cases, when you severed employment at or beyond retirement age, it was also assumed your retirement benefits commenced at that time, and "working while receiving" was very uncommon. IMHO, if possible, avoid terms that might be confusing; instead use terms such as "severance of employment", "benefit commencement date", etc. While the original post might be stuck with its existing terms, maybe the response can focus on more accurate words. You might point out that "eligibility for retirement benefits" is not identical to "electing a benefit commencement date".

R U stating that the PA will refuse to review draft DRO if the participant doesn't pay? What if it's not draft, will the PA refuse to implement it?

Yeah, my point is to wonder if these RMDs are 70-1/2 based, but the plan might state the benefit begins (to a VT) at some earlier date (such as NRD).

Hold on here. What's the purpose of the Form SSA? So the SSA can remind someone to look for a benefit in a qualified plan, and it's done when the person applies for Social Security benefits. Of course someone receiving RMD has "begun receiving benefits". But more to the point, what does the plan say about when a terminated participant's benefit should begin? Many plans say NRD, or some reference to NRD such as the end of the calendar year of attaining NRD. IOW, should this terminated participant ever get to his RMD date? Hey, I'm just wondering. Have I missed something?

This sentence means (in most cases) that a draft DRO is submitted to the plan to determine if it meets plan requirements and does not request something of the plan that it otherwise would not do. Only after such review does a DRO become a QDRO. QDROphile has provided good advice.

This topic might apply to other plans, so it was posted in two separate forums. Please put replies here: https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/64458-plan-amendment-effective-but-late-adopted/

Somewhat related is this discussion about the relationship between rollover and estate. https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/64252-qdro-deceased-alternate-payee/

At the risk of stating the obvious, please review the plan's Summary Plan Description for discussion about catch-up availability.

If the court will reopen the divorce, this looks like a new DRO, not an amended one. IMHO.

Data as of 06/28/2019 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.25 3.25 Aa 3.52 3.37 3.45 A 3.72 3.68 3.70 Baa 4.19 4.42 4.31 Avg 3.81 3.68 3.75 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.72 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.89 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.41 Observation: (1) All rates are lower than prior month. (2) Comparing the Avg rates to 12 months prior, current rates are about 50 points lower. Comparing the Avg rates to 6 months prior, current rates are about 50 points lower.

As I recall, the IRS reg. for 411 was written when the age reference was 22 (originally in ERISA), later changed to age 18 (TRA86?) but the reg. was never revised. In that reg., the year of attaining age 22 should be included in vesting service. My recall may be incorrect, but likely the questioner is able to locate and read that reg. for him/her self.

I am surprised that an ERISA attorney would push back. IMHO, you need to talk to (at least one) other ERISA attorney. I can recommend several such individuals. BTW, as stated, although a NQ plan (where the ER is putting up the money) is subject to creditors or other risk of loss, this is substantially more valuable than the current zero in those "accounts".

I can see where a participant might balk at having only one form (although the reason for doing so might not be a character endorsement). ;)