david rigby

IMHO, zero days. A well-designed window will includes good communication, adequate time, and follow-up.

Whoa. Step back. Of course, the agent "wants to put insurance" in the plan. Might be good for the agent but not really useful (or efficient) for the plan/employer. I recommend consultation with the Enrolled Actuary (well, of course I do) to focus on (1) what is the goal of the plan, then (2) how to pay for it. The sequence is important. (You may be familiar with that old saying about a cart and a horse.) BTW, I'm not saying the proposed insurance is "bad" or "wrong", only that the sponsor must first determine what death benefit other than the minimum QPSA/QJSA, if any, will be provided by the plan. A death benefit can be provided via other mechanisms, so don't assume the plan is the best/only way without first considering the alternatives.

For future reference, whenever someone is "adamant", it might be useful to ask that person to provide his/her cite(s).

As implied above, the other issue is whether the sponsor wants to "discourage" loans by using a higher rate.

Duplicate post. Responses here: https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/63260-dc-contribution-made-to-db-account/

When you say "my plan..." and "can I amend...", wouldn't the answer depend on the meaning of those pronouns?

Also, take note of the eventual timing that leads to 27 paychecks in one calendar year.

At the risk of stating the obvious, if there is a plan provision than incorporates the QDRO requirements, then the ERISA election is (probably) not relevant.

This sounds correct for IRAs. Is it true for qualified plans?

Data as of September 28, 2018 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.99 3.99 Aa 4.19 4.08 4.14 A 4.34 4.29 4.32 Baa 4.76 5.03 4.90 Avg 4.43 4.35 4.39 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 2.90 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 3.01 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.15

Possibly some other (more generic) state law?

https://benefitslink.com/cgi-bin/qa.cgi?db=qa_who_is_employer

Here is the Q&A column by Derrin Watson. https://benefitslink.com/cgi-bin/qa.cgi?db=qa_who_is_employer No.9 addresses this question. While it makes a cross-reference to No. 1, the latter has been removed.

Most pension actuaries will advise to do the testing (at least approximately) first; ie, before plan design and timing is finalized. Has this been done?

Just thinking out loud, any possibility your 2 plans are (or should be) treated as one plan for 5300 purposes (and maybe 5500 purposes)?

This may be correct; however, my understanding of the "mailbox rule" is that the postmark governs, rather than the date deposited in a mailbox. I'm ready to be corrected if there is other information.

Some prior relevant discussion here: https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/58857-to-some-a-numerically-interesting-date

Larry's advice of practicality is wise. Here is another reason: since the sponsor and/or Plan Administrator might be incurring a cost for its DRO review, it is prudent to make sure that cost is not increased (perhaps doubled) due to having to re-process a corrected DRO. The phone call recommended by Larry is inexpensive.

I can recommend several very good attorneys who specialize in employee benefits.

It means the remaining loan will be deemed to be a distribution; therefore part of your taxable income. BTW, it's likely that your loan documentation includes some discussion about this.

Exemption applies. See page 33 of IRS publication 575: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p575.pdf.

Several similar prior discussion threads, might be helpful to you. Try the Search box, with various forms of the words "embezzle" or "theft.

Your (1) and (2) are probably acceptable, but please refer the details to your pension actuary. BTW, it's possible (maybe desirable) to make sure an ERISA attorney has been involved in reviewing plan design. Don't overlook non-discrimination issues, even if you think the plan design is "vanilla". It appears you have stated your purpose: downsize with voluntary reductions. (It's possible to have multiple purposes. IMHO, stating the purpose(s) is a good thing, but not in the amendment.) Take note that some windows also include provisions that permit the employer to establish limits, based on the number of acceptances if "over-subscribed", but this usually happens in very large employee populations.

It has always been true that most ERW designs provide a better increase to younger employees, especially when measured relative to the pre-window benefit. The final plan design may incorporate some of the concerns you express in order to provide a more meaningful "bump" to older employees, but (and this is important) you (often) don't have to do so. For example, suppose the plan imposes a service limit (eg, 30 years); the ERW can temporarily override this limit if desired. I caution employers to make sure they have fully identified the purpose(s) of any ERW before deciding on the nuts and bolts. Of course, don't lose sight of any non-discrimination issues. As always, consult with your pension actuary.

Might it require a DL within X time, otherwise the plan is deemed to be void?