david rigby

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

Data as of 02/28/2019 (Thursday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.86 3.86 Aa 4.11 3.99 4.05 A 4.27 4.29 4.28 Baa 4.76 5.14 4.95 Avg 4.38 4.32 4.35 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 2.52 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.65 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.01 Observation: comparing the Avg line to 12 months prior, the rates are about 20 points higher. Comparing the Avg line to 6 months prior, the rates are about 6 points higher.

Be careful about "last day in the office". Many examples of employees with a few days of accrued leave/vacation, and retirement/severance is after those days are used up. Most of our clients specify "last day worked" and "last day paid".

As you state, the plan permits a contribution; the contract says no. Sounds to me like the contract takes precedent over a possible management decision to make a contribution. The contract has no bearing on the plan. Do I have the facts correct?

If the ER ceased to exist, would that automatically create a plan termination and a PYE?

It seems obvious (to me) that a plan sponsored by NYC is not ERISA-qualified. As QDROphile states, "government plans live... by their own rules", sometimes influenced by state-mandated standards, but not by federal-mandated standards. IMHO, the first thing to do is check the provisions of the elected form of payment. It may provide a "joint-and-survivor" payment that pays a portion to the surviving spouse (and this may or may not apply to a divorced spouse). Alternatively, the payment form may provide a different form of survivor payment, or none. You (surviving child) can probably check this before engaging any legal counsel.

Well, thanks for the clarification.

At the risk of stating the obvious, this might be a good time to review the plan provisions that describe TH benefits, esp w/r/t multiple plans. While it (theoretically) should not be necessary, we have seen examples of inadequate plan drafting.

Are you sure there is no actuarial increase?

Well..... almost never. Perry did lose a few cases.

Just curious, is IRS Reg. 1.415(a)-1(f)(7) is relevant?

Never say never.

Please consider that the "take rate" may be related to many factors, and "sweetness of the pot" is only one of them. Best way to begin is to talk to a pension actuary who has experience with ER windows. There are many ways to tweak the plan design to improve success rate, and your actuary can help with that, likely with confirmation from the legal counsel. Example1, there may be things outside the pension plan that can be modified without significant increase in cost. (I've seen a few different examples of this, some of which may require the company to engage another expert, such as accountant or attorney for compliance analysis.) Example2, the demographic characteristics of the current target group may be different from the target group on the prior window, so it may not be valid to assume the prior take rate will be applicable this time. Example3 (contact your actuary).

Data as of 01/31/2019 (Thursday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.79 3.79 Aa 4.09 3.94 4.02 A 4.27 4.21 4.24 Baa 4.82 5.19 5.01 Avg 4.39 4.28 4.34 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 2.45 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.56 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.91

As implied above, if you are referring to qualified plans, a 401(k) plan IS a 401(a) plan and a DB plan IS a 401(a) plan.