david rigby

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). ;)

Concern over whether the HOA lien is subordinate to a lender sounds irrelevant. Not all such units have a mortgage.

Um, who is "we"?

Prior discussion might help. https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/26068-alternate-payee-is-also-a-plan-participant-can-they-take-the-distribution/

Call me a cynic, but I'll bet many other TPAs would love to use this as ammunition to acquire your clients.

One way to consider the value is a hypothetical plan termination. This forces the overfunding out, where it becomes taxable and (potentially) subject to the reversion tax (50% or 20%, depending on what is done with the excess). Thus, the net after-tax excess becomes its "value".

BTW, it is acceptable to post a question in more than one forum, if it's appropriate. However, because other users might find the Q&A via search, it's useful to have all the answers in one place. To that end, putting in a cross-reference helps.

IRC 414(p)(1)(A)(i) allows a QDRO to assign "... all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan...", so I’m gonna suggest "No". I know this is unusual: have you given any thought to using up some excess by making her a participant in the plan?

Surprise! something I've never seen in 4 decades. Not having seen the plan document, it would be unexpected for either of these requests to be permitted under an ordinary reading of the provisions. IOW, "what does the plan say?"

Here's another question to add to Peter's excellent list: Does the entity (whether TPA or plan sponsor/PA, etc) want to get the correct and/or best solution to its problem?

Yeah, what Mike said. Ya know, the judge might be able to resolve that impasse.

Apparently, I need to wear my glasses when I read.

Verification: If you are taking the deduction in 2018, are you amending the 2018 tax return?

I'm much more concerned that it might not be transparent to Corbel. <wink>

Please let me know if I can help you find a new TPA.

Still too vague. There is much you have omitted. You don't have to put personal information here. Most commenters are going to respond with something like, "You need your own attorney, and make sure that person is familiar with QDRO's."

Duplicate post. Responses are here: https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/64347-cost-to-start-a-vebamewa/

It depends on the precise wording/structure of the QDRO itself.

Good points. When investigating this EE, look out for an assumption the person was deceased (and therefore no benefit due). If such error was made, the PBGC will have no record (ie, money) for this person, and the sponsor might have to amend its PBGC filing to include the missing participant.

Really? One-seventh, one-sixth, one-fifth, one-fourth, etc.

Why a new EIN?

Yes, the sponsor will probably find that retirees lump sums are less costly than retiree annuity contracts. However, other factors might be relevant; for example, a 2019 lump sum based on August 2018 rates might be about 2.5% greater than if the lump sum is based on November 2018 rates (ie, without regard to possible annuity purchase). Therefore, the "savings" can vary from plan to plan, but more importantly will vary based on the plan definition and the actual retiree population. IMHO, the sponsor might want to think long and hard, and think again, before doing a LS offer to retirees. My experience with this is summarized as, "Retirees don't like change". Someone will probably have to explain it when EACH retiree calls on the phone, and again when the retiree's spouse calls on the phone. (Voice of experience.) Don't treat this lightly. Don't be surprised if the acceptance rate is low.

Subsection 415(e), which "co-ordinated" the maximum when the EE is covered by both DB and DC plans, was repealed several years ago. (Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997?)