david rigby

… but first, read the divorce order to see if it directs anyone in particular to take action.

DOL/EBSA booklet: https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/publications/qualified-medical-child-support-orders.pdf Don't forget the administrator's responsibility to determine if the order is qualified.

Might be hasty to assume some sort of default, since some plans might allow multiple beneficiaries.

No Medicaid expert, but I thought eligibility is related to income ("modified adjusted gross income"). Are you (or the employee or the employee's guardian) sure that eligibility can be affected by assets in a qualified plan? Edit 01/13/2020: I learned that yes the eligibility can be affected by assets in a qualified plan.

Long-time users of these message boards know that terminology is often mixed up. In particular, the word "shares" jumps out. Since that is (almost) never a characteristic of a defined benefit plan, it's possible something else is being discussed. In addition, note the link above will reveal the Form 5500 only for qualified plans; it's possible the "plan" under discussion is non-qualified, perhaps even an executive plan.

Data as of 05/31/2019 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.51 3.51 Aa 3.68 3.59 3.64 A 3.83 3.89 3.86 Baa 4.33 4.68 4.51 Avg 3.95 3.92 3.94 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.91 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.06 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.48 Observation: (1) All rates are lower than prior month, some by more than 20 basis points. (2) Comparing the Avg rates to 12 months prior, current rates are about 30 points lower. Comparing the Avg rates to 6 months prior, current rates are about 70 points lower.

Please reconsider your attachments. Too much personal detail. Make it anonymous.

Some actuaries value QDROs; we do this because one party to a divorce or separation wants to know the value of a DB plan (or multiple plans) which is considered part of the "marital property". There is an entire Actuarial Standard of Practice devoted to this topic. (FYI, Actuarial Standards of Practice are issued by the Actuarial Standards Board.) The original question is answered as, "it depends", with attention to the framework presented in ASOP 34. It might be appropriate to use the 417 basis. However, an experienced actuary will inquire (probably to the attorney rather than to the divorcing party) about: Is the actuary acting as an agent of the attorney? Should actuarial parameters be selected by the actuary or the attorney? Should a unisex basis be used? Should the discount rate be based on a particular set of (perhaps, independent) criteria? Should ancillaries be included? Are there plan provisions (eg, death benefits) that might affect the choice of parameters? Etc. These questions are relevant whether or not the plan is covered by ERISA. The experienced actuary will ask many other questions also. (I have.) Of course, whatever form of communication is produced by the actuary might include alternatives and/or ranges (if requested by the attorney) and will document all the decisions made, including who made them.

Pardon my skepticism, I'm not convinced the original question is about cash balance plans. FYI, there are provisions in pension law that deal with mandatory Employee contributions that might be part of a traditional defined benefit plan. See Internal Revenue Code section 411(c). Is this (part of) the original question?

It might help to understand who "we" is.

Yes. Asking for comments on any of it.

Might apply to multiple participants?

I would be interested in reading comments from our QDRO legal beagles: http://hr.dickinson-wright.com/2019/05/24/surprise-a-qdro-can-apply-to-a-welfare-benefit-plan/

In my observation, most plans do not restrict the retiree from changing the beneficiary in such circumstances. However, as stated above, plan rules govern.

Is there a trustee? Does the trustee control the account?

Whose attorney? The plan should take (or, at least listen to) advice from its own attorney. The attorney for the beneficiary and/or the estate does not get a vote.

Does the plan have any mechanism for such "return"?

It's my understanding (look for prior discussion threads on this point): Because the estate is not a natural person, the estate cannot establish an IRA and the estate is not a participant in another tax-qualified plan; therefore, the estate does not have an option to elect a direct rollover. Since the 20% withholding applies only to “rollable” distributions, this default withholding does not apply to any payment to an estate. Accordingly, the “other default” withholding will apply: 10%. However, the estate has the right to elect zero withholding, and can use W-4P for this purpose. The estate’s right to make this election is specifically mentioned near the top of the first column on page 2 of the W-4P instructions. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4p.pdf QDRO is not related to this question.

Is there a question?

The likely answer to that question is found here (ie, "to get a better job!)

Perhaps it's only a small point, but the thread title and the original post might be misleading. According to the OP, the bargaining agreed to deferrals "but no match". I read that as the CBA employees are not eligible for a match. The title says "match not bargained", which is (IMHO) a different matter. Just a request to be cautious with your wording, especially because it may affect the responses.

In simple terms, "non-discrimination" tests are how "fairness" is defined. In most cases, this is a concept that compares HCEs relative to NHCEs. It does not prohibit discrimination within either category. (There are exceptions to the "comparison", such as the 415 limitation which is an example of absolute limits without comparing HCEs to NHCEs.)

Perhaps engaging an auditor should also be considered.

http://www.actuarialstandardsboard.org/standards-of-practice/#filter=* Go to ASOP 51, and "download the PDF". Search the document for the word "accounting". You find a few references in the Appendix that address this issue.

Currently in the process of doing a plan termination and we suggested Peter's approach of all direct deposit. That suggestion was rejected precisely because of Kevin's point.