david rigby

Um, please clarify: who is "mother"?

What does the plan say?

FWIW, in my opinion, this arrangement would not be considered a "pension plan" under the accounting standards.

Thanks. Your synopsis is reasonably close to my need, but any SQL usage is not available. Probably only Excel or Access.

I'm looking for a method to track pension payroll information for multiple plans. The desired system would not make the payments, but would produce an output file for another system that makes the payments. The desired system would also be modifiable to create other types of output, such as annual or monthly summaries. I've reviewed Excel and Access templates and found nothing that seems appropriate. Any suggestions?

Peter, At first, this sounded ridiculous. However, upon further thought, I considered it from the perspective of an actuary, and the actuarial profession’s Code of Professional Conduct. In my view, such representation is possible, but might not be advisable; I would tread very carefully. For reference: http://www.actuary.org/content/code-professional-conduct Any actuary who is a member of one of the five US-based actuarial organizations is bound by this Code. Similar rules apply to our friends in the Canadian Institute of Actuaries (yep, their acronym is CIA). If your hypothetical involved an actuary, the COPC would impact the actuary in multiple ways. To my reading, these are the most obvious: Precept 1. Uphold the reputation of the profession. In your hypothetical, the actuary must consider whether the public image of such action might be detrimental, whether or not there was a conflict. Precept 2. Is the actuary qualified to represent the client before the relevant agency? Precept 7. Full disclosure to any relevant parties of an actual or potential conflict of interest, and prior agreement by relevant parties.

What are you trying to accomplish?

Aren't most child support QDRO payments made to someone other than the participant?

Yes, the AP receives the QDRO distribution and it is taxable. But, it seems presumptuous to assume the AP will owe taxes. The PA does not need to know, and should not care, about the AP's tax situation. The PA should provide to the AP exactly what is (probably) provided to any other distributee: the Special Tax Notice and a W-4P.

Has anyone given more thought to this possible one-year delay? What do you think of the de minimis concept? (It looks a bit too easy, so perhaps I'm missing something.)

Terms of the employment contract do not alter terms of the plan document.

Just my opinion: if a DRO needs to be "clarified", it should not become a QDRO. But, perhaps there are other issues or practicalities?

Recent update to the PBGC website, discussing small professional employers: https://www.pbgc.gov/prac/other-guidance/insurance-coverage BTW, is this person a member of any professional associations? Perhaps she can inquire if others have a similar experience.

Perhaps you can help by describing where you found the answer, for the benefit of others.

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