david rigby

I think you can use any loss amortization procedure, as long as it provides the 10% corridor as a minimum. However, IMHO, changing to a different procedure is a change in accounting policy, and someone else has to pass judgement on that. BTW, I would be interested in hearing any comments about how the auditor feels about such change.

Um... follow the plan document?

Resurrecting this topic, https://www.plansponsor.com/erisa-not-preempt-state-slayer-laws/, this case seems to differ because of the insanity verdict. The court upheld the most common (I think) understanding/application of a “slayer statute”. However, I wonder if users have crafted plan language to deal with the potential of a slayer statute removing the surviving spouse (or anyone else) from benefiting under a plan? Although this discussion thread is posted in the 401(k) Forum, the potential certainly applies to any qualified plan. For example, many DB plans have only one pre-retirement death benefit: a QPSA “to the surviving spouse”; in such case, the plan has no authority to pay anyone else. Any thoughts?

Maybe the post refers to a QDRO where one or both spouses are covered by a plan that covers federal employees? It seems likely the answer to the original Q is to return to court; only the judge can change the judge's order.

I'm wondering if this implies the plan had other assets sometime in the past. If so, what happened? Oh, we're back to the fiduciary liability question.

IMHO, not filing on time because "the auditor attachment is not ready" is a terrible reason to be late.

Data as of 02/28/2018 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.84 3.84 Aa 3.97 3.98 3.98 A 4.10 4.12 4.11 Baa 4.45 4.65 4.55 Avg 4.17 4.15 4.16 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs.) 2.32 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs.) 2.70 Long-Term (10+ yrs.) 3.04

Do you have access to the Gray Book? There are several post-PPA Q&As related to "spin-off". For example, 2012-12, attached. In addition, see IRS §1.430(g)-1(c). Might be other references. 2012_Gray_Book_QA2012.12.pdf

Plural?

Correct. BTW, you start a paragraph with, "The way to potentially avoid...". When you hire a pension actuary, you will learn that is not the only way to "avoid".

It's probably in the SPD also.

IMHO, it's not about the DOL, it's about the courts. But maybe that's just me.

A new demographic category.

Your question(s) may need a bit more "precision". Perhaps they have been addressed previously. You can go to this page: https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/forum/10-church-plans/ and use the "Search". For example, this discussion is 15 years old: https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/13239-how-does-a-pastors-housing-allowance-affect-the-definition-of-compensa/&tab=comments#comment-68461

Exactly. It is fairly common for distributions to be made when information is available (eg, because some participants make an election sooner than others). The original post implies something else, such as intentionally delaying distributions for a group of participants. Is there something else going on?

I once tried to find the origin of the "high-25" rule in Reg. 1.401(a)(4)-5(b)(3). Unfortunately, I can no longer find that research, but I recall it dates to a 1950's regulatory pronouncement (although not necessarily a formal regulation). To the best of my knowledge, it has never existed in any statute. Since it pre-dates ERISA and the (a)(4) regs by many(!) years, perhaps it should not exist. Does any of the "removal" affect this? Or have I overlooked something?

QDROphile is correct. Here is an earlier discussion about the "sham divorce".

I'll add another question. Since ERISA contains some exemptions dependent upon meeting the applicable requirements in effect immediately preceding ERISA [eg, IRC 411(e)], does "removal" have any effect?

Same person? Sure, he can see it. Maybe he doesn't remember. Maybe he wants to revise it.

That is similar to, but not identical, to the PBGC exemption under ERISA section 4021. FWIW, I'm aware of no PBGC elaboration/expansion on this concept, but they do make individual rulings whenever asked. Perhaps that general concept might be applicable?

Sorry, don't have time to deal with this, except: 0/0 is not infinite. It is "undefined". The only thing that might be on point in the Gray Book (and I'm not sure it helps you) is Q&A 2014-33: QUESTION 2014-33 Section 415: Actuarial Increase for Participant Hired after Age 65 A plan provides for actuarial increases for participants who work past age 65 (plan’s NRD). Consider a participant hired at age 66 on January 1, who retires at age 71 on January 1 five years later. How is the actuarial increase in the §415(b) limit determined for this participant? a) Actuarially adjust the §415(b) limit from age 67 to age 71, using the lesser of the statutory assumptions of §415(b)(2)(E) or the actuarial equivalent factors under the plan for determining post NRD increases. The actuarial increases apply after a benefit is earned during the first year of employment (i.e., from age 66 to age 67). b) Actuarially adjust the §415(b) limit from age 66 to age 71, using the lesser of the statutory assumptions of §415(b)(2)(E) or the actuarial equivalent factors under the plan for determining post NRD increases. The actuarial increases apply from date of hire. c) Actuarially adjust the §415(b) limit from age 66 to age 71. Since no plan actuarial increase factor applies before age 67, the §415(b) limit is adjusted from age 66 to age 67 using the statutory assumptions of §415(b)(2)(E), and then from age 67 to age 71 using the lesser of the statutory assumptions of §415(b)(2)(E) or the actuarial equivalent factors under the plan for determining post NRD increases. d) Actuarially adjust the §415(b) limit from age 65 to age 71, using the lesser of the statutory assumptions of §415(b)(2)(E) or the actuarial equivalent factors under the plan for determining post NRD increases. The actuarial increases apply from age 65. e) Actuarially adjust the §415(b) limit from age 65 to age 71. Since no plan actuarial increase factor applies before age 67, the §415(b) limit is adjusted from age 65 to age 67 using the statutory assumptions of §415(b)(2)(E), and then from age 67 to age 71 using the lesser of the statutory assumptions of §415(b)(2)(E) or the actuarial equivalent factors under the plan. RESPONSE Response (d) is correct. Regulation §1.415(b)-1(e)(2)(i) calls for the use of plan adjustments from age 65 to current age. While literally the regulation calls for a zero/zero ratio in this situation because there is no accrual at age 65, the intent was to isolate the plan’s basis for increases on the assumption that the benefit at age 65 is nonzero. Copyright © 2014, Enrolled Actuaries Meeting

QDROphile gives good advice. However, just in case it has not be explored, don't overlook the possibility of more than one plan. He could have been covered under multiple plans of the same employer; especially look into this if your ex-husband had more than one employer during your marriage.

Maybe. While the above statement is often correct, don't overlook the possibility of other relevant circumstances. There could be some remaining employees, or some remaining assets, or some other related business, or the owner might immediately purchase something else, etc.

No expert I, just a question. What if the CBA states that the plan document is part of the CBA? Is that enough to document the "amendment"?

Be careful about the (pre-59-1/2) 10% penalty applicable to IRAs. That is, if you take it from the plan, roll it to an IRA, and then take an IRA distribution prior to 59-1/2, you will have lost (I think) the exemption from the 10% excise tax. But double-check in IRS Publication 590-B, https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590b.pdf