david rigby

Just suggesting that this ONE error may not be the only error. If there are others, the source of that problem should be addressed.

Smoke? Fire? Has it been determined that this problem is/is not isolated? One error could mean other errors. Just sayin'.

Several times, I've changed my salary assumption. (Example1, 2009 recession. Example2, immediately following a very good year in which sales commissions were unusually large and not expected to recur.) It may also be valid to have different assumptions for different groups/locations/etc.

The original Q was about assumptions. If you need to change your salary increase assumption, do it. Keep a record of why and what data is used for your conclusion. IMHO, you should also include reasonable (not necessarily detailed) discussion in your actuarial report. Don't forget the 5500 attachment.

Pardon my ignorance, can you provide more information?

Caution. The original Q might mean a plan adopted by one member of a controlled group but not by other members. If one or more other members has a qualified plan, it's possible the non-discrimination testing is passed only in the aggregate. Thus, terminating one plan might affect the other plan(s).

Perhaps it is prudent to view this as a consulting opportunity: make sure you understand the context ("why do you want a periodic distribution?") before recommending yes or no to the amendment question.

I have some widgets for sale. Price negotiable.

Be careful. Was it in the contract, but never enforced? (That's not the same as not being in the loan contract at all.)

Huh? Are you saying the QDRO has been finalized and the amount paid/transferred to the AP? If so, the participant's next statement will show the amount leaving his account.

I've answered this question for several retirees in the past, several different plans. While it may be possible for a plan provision to permit a retiree in pay status to cease or suspend payments, I've never seen a plan that does so. Also, it seems unlikely the plan administrator (and/or plan sponsor) would want such a provision.

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).