david rigby

FWIW, I've seen a non-PBGC plan use an owner waiver as if it was subject to PBGC rules.

BTW, consider that "earnings" is most often tracked as "net". That is, the fund has some investment return but it also might pay some expenses, so the net is considered "earnings to allocate".

Exactly! As a non-lawyer, I appreciate that the legal profession recognizes that real harm can come from non-lawyers pretending they know the law, and its consequences. In the same manner, I appreciate when other professionals acknowledge that actuaries have relevant training and experience that helps with other matters.

Since he contacted the PA just before 65, that might imply he knew all along that he was vested, and that he should apply for the benefit. If you take that approach, it may be possible to ignore any retroactive commencement date. However, as stated above, get ERISA counsel to opine.

Maybe. The mailing was sent incorrectly, but the correct address had been provided. Note the original post states "...it took weeks...", different from the "...two weeks..." in another post. From the facts given, we don't know how much delay applies in this case. If the AP feels he/she has a legitimate complaint, then he/she should use the plan's claim/appeal procedures. The PA should consider whether the "...AP is asserting..." may have already begun such appeal procedures.

MoJo, should such contact be initiated by his (ESOP-fluent) attorney?

I think TEL is making the distinction between charging it to the Plan vs. charging it to the participant.

Read the Summary Plan Description (shorthand SPD) for your husband's plan.

Lot's more information needed, but the most important information is: "what does the QDRO say?" Note (1) survivor benefits might have its own set of provisions; (2) a QDRO might award more than (or less than) X% of the benefit earned (i.e. at 2006 in your example) because the QDRO award can be part of the "horse-trading" in any divorce/property settlement. Can she (first wife) collect benefits at 59-1/2? Maybe, depends on the terms of the plan document and the QDRO. BTW, your Q implies this is a defined benefit plan rather than a defined contribution plan; the distinction is important, but just my assumption, so far.

Well, sort of. It's not quite that simple, since any debris (eg, graphite, shavings) can be dangerous in space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing_in_space

Thanks, Dave. Flexibility is nice, and I can see how some users will prefer this alternative. For me, I'll probably use the default mode.

There might be some corollary issues to address first. What is the nature of "...failed to put retirees in pay status..."? Do these retirees know something is missing? Should the PA be discussing fiduciary liability with its ERISA attorney? Why a lump sum rate? Are you trying to identify how to make up for overlooked annuity payments? Is there an administrative precedent? What does the plan say about RASD?

Reconsidering the original press release, that $70 million cost seems so breathtakingly large as to be doubtful. My hunch is someone arrived at that number by including extra costs unrelated to the program (such as, the full cost of employee X when that employee only spent 20% of his/her time on the program). I don't have any real data to support this (which is why it's a hunch), just observing that stretching the truth is not uncommon in DC.

I'm wondering about the communication. Telling the employee base that "...anyone earning W-2 compensation of less than "X" is excluded", is not a pleasant message. (BTW, you don't know W2 comp until the end of the year, so that looks like a message of ambiguity, at least for some.) Seems like you would want to use some type of job classification. Or is this irrelevant?

Are the children minors? (Don't know if it's relevant. Just asking.)

Moody's Daily Bond Yields Data as of 07/31/17 (Monday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.68 3.68 Aa 3.80 3.79 3.80 A 3.97 3.95 3.96 Baa 4.33 4.39 4.36 Avg 4.03 3.95 3.99 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.54 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.01 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.71

Perhaps this statement from the press release is the most alarming aspect to this program.

I don't know the answer to the original question, but my hunch is the total income appears to have been reported correctly, but not under the correct SSN. Due to nature of the 100% J&S, one might be tempted to suggest that the IRS has experienced no "harm", so just fix the problem going forward; however, I'm not going to suggest it, since other facts may be relevant: (1) did the death get reported on the next 1040 filing? (2) did the husband accept the income and also continue filing jointly each year (i.e., fraud)? (3) did the spouse remarry? (4) other facts relevant to the spouse's tax filing? (5) etc. Someone needs a tax advisor to ask all these questions, and that someone is not the plan administrator. However, the PA needs advice on whether it should issue revised 1099's. Back to the original question: "how you handle late reported deaths concerning 1099-R tax reporting?" The answer may depend on who is asking: (a) are you representing the payor or the PA, and now you are trying to get the payments and 1099 correct? (b) are you the tax advisor for the spouse? (c) etc. I would be shocked if the IRS has not experienced this exact fact pattern, and already has the answer. Perhaps there is a vehicle for asking this question directly, or the aforementioned tax advisor also knows.

My first question is whether the spouse/beneficiary has committed fraud. But perhaps you've already gotten past this?

Derrin Watson has offered this: https://benefitslink.com/cgi-bin/qa.cgi?db=qa_who_is_employer&id=346

Now that is something useful.

Actuarial vendor performs the annual actuarial valuation for a DB plan, and delivers the report to the sponsoring employer (i.e., the PA). Actuarial vendor then sends its invoice for services rendered. The plan provisions have always permitted the plan to pay reasonable expenses if not paid by the sponsor. "The trust fund shall be used for the exclusive benefit of the participants and their beneficiaries and to pay administrative expenses of the plan and trust to the extent not paid by the Hospital." In prior years, the sponsor has elected to have the plan pay some expenses, including fees from the actuary, but not necessarily the same each year. In some years the plan has paid expense X, Y, and Z, while in other years the plan has paid expense X and Y. For the current invoice, the sponsor does not pay promptly, nor is the invoice paid by the plan. A few months later, the sponsor declares chapter 11 bankruptcy. The sponsor also files for a PBGC distress termination (without involvement of this actuary). Sponsor refuses to pay the actuary's invoice, and refuses to send the invoice to the plan trustee for payment. Bankruptcy attorney says, “get in line, like everyone else”. Research includes ERISA sections 403 and 404, and DOL Advisory Opinion 2001-01A, Distress Termination instructions. Nothing appears to restrict the payment of reasonable administrative expenses in the event of bankruptcy. My view is that plan provisions require the sponsor to direct payment from the trust since the sponsor has not made the payment, but I’m willing to consider other viewpoints. Any comments or experience that you are willing to share?

it depends on plan provisions. check the summary plan description.

Non-lawyer question: would you have acted and/or "cautioned" any differently if the plan and/or plan sponsor was not involved? If so, how?

The original poster might get some value by searching the Message Boards using the term "estate"