david rigby

A brief caution: make sure (when returning the check) that you emphasize the nature: spell out Required Minimum Distribution, as well as the taxability. (Perhaps this has already been done, just being cautious.)

Think outside the box. Does it help or hurt the goal to limit the allocation to the husband?

Ask the accountant if he/she has a cite for this. (This might be another way of saying, "so what?")

Data as of 03/29/2019 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.62 3.62 Aa 3.81 3.70 3.76 A 3.99 4.01 4.00 Baa 4.49 4.84 4.67 Avg 4.10 4.04 4.075 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 2.24 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.35 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.73 Observation: comparing the Avg line to 12 months prior, current rates are 5-8 points lower. Comparing the Avg line to 6 months prior, current rates are about 30 points lower.

FICA wages of $18K, but zero FICA withholding? Is that possible?

To the original poster: Please do not send any personal information to this person - or anyone else - until you have vetted the person/company. Anything you send should have a password or some other security.

OK, there is (or soon will be) a union (including the good faith bargaining characteristic). That does not require a new plan. The company (and maybe the union itself) should consider the pros and cons of creating a new plan vs. using the existing plan. It's also true (seen it many times) that the union might want neither of those alternatives, so it's good to get advice from someone who has broad experience in qualified plans.

At the risk of going off target, there have been many questions posed on these Message Boards that misuse the word "sold". If the company was sold (complete stock sale, not asset sale), that does not require the plan to terminate (probably), and may not result in a plan termination. The original poster should make sure to know the true nature of the transaction.

Has anyone posed these questions to the signing actuary?

Have you considered whether an adoption exists? (PS, sometimes the kids don't know about it.)

No disagreement with Luke's comments, but consider the intersection of PA interpretation and HR policy. Easy to imagine that the PA would prefer looking to existing policy(ies) rather than create them.

While this is pretty old, and it's from the Gray Book, perhaps it will help: IMHO, based on the facts you state, this person does not have a "bona fide quit"; also, the "available to work in the other eleven months" is not relevant. If the ER desires to encourage a distribution, is there any reason why the ER cannot create a severance of employment?

Just an observation: if the plan is frozen to new accruals (but not frozen to any necessary actuarial increase), and a retiree (i.e., receiving annuity payments) is rehired, day-to-day plan administration will be better/simpler/easier to communicate if the plan provisions do not create a suspension of current annuity payments, whether the rehired retiree works 5 hours a week or 40 hours a week.

The original poster might find some value in this set of FAQs from the IRS: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-faqs-regarding-loans

Has the draft been reviewed by the plan administrator? The most common practice is to prepare a draft, and let the PA review, then get the court to sign. While your local court procedures might require both parties to sign off, it's possible that putting a final version (along with the draft approved by the PA) in front of the court, might "spur" the Ex to add his signature.

Have you tried searching here?

I did not find the word "divorce" in IRC 414(p).

… and the other question is whether it is wise for him to terminate the existing plan.

My experience is that restatements are often just continuations of earlier drafting errors (sometimes just a misspelling). When reviewing plan provisions, I've had to review multiple previous restatements; when you find an error has been carried forward, it tends to lessen your confidence in the document process. I prefer amendments.

Note that IRC 414(p)(1)(B)(i) states, "... relates to the provision of child support, alimony payments, or marital property rights to a spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of a participant …" Presumably, it's up to the court to determine if "other dependent" is relevant. If there is property in question, perhaps this could be the basis for a DRO. Just wonderin'.

Just curious, is this valuable? (maybe nothing?) Settlor expense? Plan expense? If the sponsor is expected to "renew" with their law firm, and the fee is paid by the plan, is such fee prudent under fiduciary standards? Inquiring minds want to know.

Just my opinion: send it to a relative if you have such name and address. Remember that a deceased person can file a tax return, so the relative might get a refund. 1099R should reflect deceased's name and SSN, but you can mail it to the relative. IMHO, this is best if the relative is a child of deceased. After mailing, you don't care what they do with it; asking will only drag you into their circumstances. And keep a file note about what you did.

I'll take all your nickels, dimes, and quarters. Even the folding green paper.

Relevant prior discussion? https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/60348-rmd-rules/&tab=comments#comment-268311

More recent attorney discussion RE the interaction of ERISA with slayer statutes: http://www.employeebenefitsupdate.com/benefits-law-update/2019/2/19/erisa-preemption-of-state-slayer-statutes-does-it-matter.html