david rigby

Might not be exactly on point for you, but we have a couple of clients with DB plans, where the document specified a lump sum payment to the participant's estate (ie, in situation similar to the original post). Our review determined that: estate was not eligible for rollover, therefore no 20% withholding, and LS distribution was subject to default (10%) withholding, but the estate could submit a W-4P to elect zero withholding, and estate must have its own TIN.

Ambiguous: 1. Do you mean: terminated participant is reported with code A, later paid out, and now wondering whether to report with code D? 2. Alterntaviely, do you mean: terminated participant was not listed on the SSA, later paid out, and now need to add them with a code D? If (2), there is nothing to report.

Ummm... which question are you answering?

Comment here, not exactly on point, from the Gray Book might be relevant to your question.

Is there a valid beneficiary designation? If not, what does the plan say about how to determine the beneficiary? BTW, what type of plan is this?

What he said. BTW, to emphasize Mike's comment, the correction needed is personal, and is not related to the plan (at least, based on the facts presented).

As I think about it more, I can see this as a valid method, for simplicity. I probably would not recommend this method, but it might be acceptable. BTW, I've seen more than one document that requires surviving spouse benefits commence at the earliest possible date, with retroactive payments when the spouse shows up late. Perhaps the original poster wants to review the document for something similar?

Hmmm. FGC may be on to something. My firm would be interested in discussing services.

Not disrespecting the TPA and/or its president, does the plan document permit this?

Have you subscribed? https://benefitslink.com/newsletter/ Also, some of the items in the daily BenefitsLink newsletter will take you to other places that allow you to subscribe.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-17-60.pdf

Does this mean she is not yet separated from employment? (The title of the post might imply otherwise.) If she previously separated employment, it's possible that more than one RMD is due/overdue.

Settlement accounting (assuming this refers to FAS88 / ASC715), is triggered at a certain level: service cost + interest cost.

Ditto.

Good advice. While discussing with ERISA counsel, it is appropriate to discuss how this will be documented. For example, a plan amendment awarding 100% vesting for all employees at X location who terminate employment between Y and Z dates? Even if administered correctly with 100% vesting, it helps to have written documentation of why.

Data as of 09/29/17 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.62 3.62 Aa 3.77 3.79 3.78 A 3.92 3.91 3.92 Baa 4.28 4.38 4.33 Avg 3.99 3.93 3.96 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.59 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.05 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.67

Did the 2017 distribution include a RMD? If so, that portion was ineligible for a rollover.

My understanding is that property settlements are much more important than a divorce proceeding. Note that some people get separated, with a property settlement, but never divorced. Not all property settlements contain the explicit information contained in a DRO/QDRO.

I've seen documents with a QPSA greater than 50% get amended to exactly 50%.

This is important: the drafter need those documents, and (hopefully) creates a DRO such that the PA does not.

3) the participant can die.

Back to the original post: the record-keeper knows about the "402g problem" only as a coincidence. That, by itself, does not necessarily lead to action. Does the record-keeper/TPA have any responsibility to speak up? to whom? Could the record-keeper/TPA be in violation of a service agreement by speaking up? by not speaking up?

The original question is interesting, especially since the attorney should be the one most sensitive to privacy issues. Next time it happens, perhaps you can ask the attorney if he/she sees any such privacy issue, and then report back so the class can read the answer.

I might go out on a limb and ask if there is some "deficiency" in the communication of the plan. Not accusing, just askin'.

Tax software might find this (I've never verified).