david rigby

Your description of (3) seems to imply that (2) includes a change of the underlying payment form. Even if allowed by the plan (seems unlikely), such change must be affirmative by both the Participant and AP, rather than implied by the DRO. IMHO, the answer must be (1), and the J&S portion is unchanged. BTW, if there are any possible COLAs, it will be prudent to explicitly describe how they are applied under the DRO.

Perhaps there is also guidance/example in the Summary Plan Description (SPD).

Unable to capture 12/31/18 rates. Here are 01/02/19 rates: Data as of 01/02/2019 (Wednesday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.95 3.95 Aa 4.14 4.11 4.13 A 4.30 4.29 4.30 Baa 4.87 5.35 5.11 Avg 4.44 4.43 4.44

ERISA includes a provision that states ambiguities should be resolved in the participant's favor. Could this be the reason for the prior interpretation?

I suggest, in the future, you clarify what is meant by "share".

… and (as always) check the plan document provisions. (There are lots of documents not subject to 411 that include language similar to 411d6.)

You don't specify the info on the relevant SSA. If participant was fully paid out, your most important task is to locate such evidence and provide a copy to (former?) participant. Second task it to verify correct info on next SSA.

Is this what the Plan says?

1. What exactly is being audited?

I think "outside the plan" is intended as reference to stock, not as reference to the individual.

Related issue (maybe). Sometimes such low NRA was originally created for one (or a few) participants. Is that still the case? If not, maybe the sponsor would like to change it to 60? 62? 65? If you study the history of early retirement, you may decide that it's no longer useful to encourage it. Don't forget 411(d)(6).

Are you the actuary? If not, have you discussed this with the actuary? Rules for such changes can be found in Rev. Proc. 2017-56. https://www.irs.gov/irb/2017-44_IRB#RP-2017-56

IMHO, you cannot answer the question of "is this above/below LS threshold" until after you have answered the other question. Is there any other guidance (or plan provision) to suggest otherwise? BTW, I'm not sure that additional interest is the only (or correct) option for your adjustment. My first thought would be to include the "missed" monthly payments, with interest adjustment; but there might be valid alternatives. Also, look for any precedent (whether or not deceased)?

Too bad. That's what TH is for. BTW, some good consulting might review the actual turnover and measure how much impact the TH schedule will "cost" (maybe not much). Good consulting might also review the plan demographics and consider whether there is something to delay to plan becoming TH (maybe, not necessarily).

Don't overlook the plan responsibility to ask the participant for the overpayment, noting that such overpayment is not eligible for rollover. (You may not get it back, but the first step is to ask.)

Assuming the Plan performed the termination correctly, and passed the info and $$ to the PBGC correctly, the Plan is done. Provide the participant with the PBGC contact information.

Discrimination! BTW, this sounds like a BRF failure. But maybe others have some relevant experience.

have you considered that: 1. the participant may be deceased? 2. the participant may not be a US citizen and has returned to his/her home country?

See good advice from Larry. One minor clarification: a QDRO is part of a property settlement, which can precede the finalization of a divorce.

Not a lawyer. In general, a DRO is an order of the court, not the two spouses, so signing may not be relevant unless required by state court procedures. However, consider whether his action(s) might be defiance of a judge (ie, contempt of court). Your attorney has to run with this ball.

Data as of 11/30/2018 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.22 4.22 Aa 4.45 4.38 4.42 A 4.53 4.54 4.54 Baa 5.07 5.49 5.28 Avg 4.68 4.66 4.67 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 2.83 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.94 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.25

Perhaps the TPA and the plan sponsor can recognize practicality: pay it all, and get the sponsor to pay the distribution fee.

Encourage more deferrals, especially by the HCEs. (Of course, this is meant as "relative to only one match")

ACP yes. But this design may cause some strain on the ADP test as well.

Where is the burden of proof? If a PA requires a copy of the marriage certificate to document a retiring employee's claim of marriage (as some do), would it be consistent to require some analogous proof from anyone claiming marriage thru common law status?