david rigby

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

...which (sort of) screams that someone(!) should have a rule.

Thanks to fellow actuary Jeff Hartmann for tracking down this information: Data as of 01/31/2018 (Wednesday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.59 3.59 Aa 3.74 3.71 3.73 A 3.91 3.87 3.89 Baa 4.21 4.35 4.28 Avg 3.95 3.88 3.92 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 2.21 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.57 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.85

My apologies, forgot to get the 01/31/18 rates. Here are the rates for next day. Data as of Feb. 1, 2018 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.62 3.62 Aa 3.80 3.78 3.79 A 3.96 3.93 3.95 Baa 4.27 4.40 4.34 Avg 4.01 3.93 3.97 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 2.23 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.61 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.91

...which assumes the payroll department understands the issue. Unfortunately, this ignores how the person was paid. Example, EE terminated on 12/29/17, and got paid on that day for a full month's compensation.

This might be correct, but it appears to be an assumption. (You are aware that people can have more than one job, aren't you?)

Words have meaning, and can be useful for correct understanding. It may be prudent to avoid "pay back", or "repay", because those terms are not indicative of a rollover. On the other hand, if the plan makes a loan, don't use the word "rollover" at the time of repayment.

Caution. This isn't the first time that 12/31 fell on a weekend. Check for precedent.

If the EE expects repayment, would a loan be more appropriate?

See IRS Publication 590-A, starting on page 40, https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590a.pdf

The more you observe politics, the more you've got to admit that each party is worse than the other. (Will Rogers) When the politicians complain that TV turns the proceedings into a circus, it should be made clear that the circus was already there, and that TV has merely demonstrated that not all the performers are well trained. (Edward R. Murrow) Politics: the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy. (Ernest Benn) No political party can fool all of the people all of the time; that's why we have two parties. (Will Rogers) Do we really want politicians setting ethical standards for society? (me)

Talk to your ERISA attorney first. The original post said "leaving", which sounds like a separation of employment, which sounds like a distributable event. The sequence of events might be important in determining what options are available.

ASPPA has some information about webcasts here: http://www.asppa-net.org/Education/Webcasts

It's unclear from your phrasing exactly what your role is. If you represent the Plan from which the distribution came (eg, sponsor rep or TPA rep), it may be prudent to consider whether you should be involved in solving this "problem". But maybe it's just me.

From the Schedule SB portion of the 5500 instructions (emphasis mine): "... the plan administrator of any single-employer defined benefit plan ... that is subject to the minimum funding standards (see Code section 412 and Part 3 of Title I of ERISA) must obtain a completed Schedule SB (including attachments) that is prepared and signed by the plan’s enrolled actuary..."

401(k) plans do not have a Schedule SB (assuming this isn't a "DB-k" plan).

Well...... to be accurate, it matters if the plan document says so.

Where are you located? I can offer names of several attorneys for consideration. Private message.