david rigby

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).

No, I've never heard of it. But, the plan provisions rule. Did the attorney identify the current restriction that must be amended?

From the EOB: "A plan has a plan year ending December 31. For the 2012 plan year, the determination date is 12/31/2011. To determine whether the plan is top-heavy, the account balances calculated as of the determination date include all catch-up contributions made for the 2011 plan year and for prior plan years. Since the top-heavy determination date is being made for the 2012 plan year, catch-up contributions made for the 2011 plan year are part of the catch-up contributions made for prior plan years, and so are included in the top-heavy ratio."

Touché. You are correct: should be FTAP rather than AFTAP (we put them both, if different).

Don't forget, while catch-ups aren't included in this year's analysis, next year they are part of the account balances, so they are included in subsequent TH analysis.

There might be some other reasons, such as: - Does a collective bargaining agreement have anything to say about it? (Obviously, not relevant in this case.) - Does a corporate loan covenant have anything to say about it? - Since the AFN contains the AFTAP, does the sponsoring ER want to make sure to communicate the AFTAP of at least X%?

Rather than "pretty sure", perhaps it would be prudent to verify this first. Many payroll systems include thresholds that limit deductions, as a method to avoid over-withholding. (Whether they work properly is another matter, but such system limits could be part of the problem.)

When in doubt about expense payments, the PA/fiduciary might wish to consider getting opinion of ERISA counsel.

Pardon my ignorance, just what is meant by "vendor"?

The purpose of any actuarial increase is to "make up" for the missed payments. Therefore, it should be based on the demographic data of the recipient.

The "...hurt participants..." reasoning is based on a stronger incentive for sponsors to freeze or terminate the plan.

I've seen examples of missing participants who will never be located because they have moved back to the country of origin. Since PBGC is not available, does this argue in favor of "forfeiting" the benefit (of course, with the promise of restoration it if the participant reappears)?