david rigby

Is there a policy issued?

As far as I can tell, this "proposal" relates only to the tax, not the SS benefit calculation.

I think it depends on the terms of the plan. Termination of the plan is (typically) a distributable event, so separation of employment may not be required, but most plan terminations I've seen do not include any "separation of employment" clause for those still active. If the plan purchases an annuity for an active, the annuity provisions must include all the potential early retirement options, which means the insurance company will probably ignore any separation of employment provision, and the most expensive of all E.R. permutations will determine the annuity cost.

Pardon me if I don't understand the question. If the TPA firm is providing Relius SOC1/SOC2 statement(s) to an auditor, that does not cover the controls and procedures of the TPA firm itself. Does the auditor understand the difference? Alternatively, if the TPA firm is implying that such SOC1/SOC2 statement(s) are for the TPA firm, that sounds like deliberate deception. As someone already stated: fraud.

Data as of May 31, 2017 (Wednesday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.75 3.75 Aa 3.83 3.84 3.84 A 4.01 3.99 4.00 Baa 4.38 4.49 4.44 Avg 4.07 4.02 4.05 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.57 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.99 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.68

While #1 might be "cheaper" than the annuity purchase, it may also include some other issues. I recommend you discuss this with an experienced pension actuary. May also be worthwhile to discuss with (or at least mention to) the plan's ERISA attorney.

Look over other messages on this same Message Board. For example, https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/59844-starting-a-tpa-firm-from-scratch-need-help/ https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/56153-starting-new-tpa-practice/

Not dispositive to the original question, just a reminder that pronouns sometimes need clarity (ie, "she" and "her"): fiancée = a woman engaged to be married. fiancé = a man engaged to be married.

If this implies a desire for opinion from a second legal counsel, send me a private message and I'll offer a few names to consider.

If you paid it (without regard to who is actually creating the check): (1) using the correct plan name, then (2) issue a 1099-R using the correct plan name and (now deceased) trust EIN, will that accomplish the goal of making it roll-able?

Let's acknowledge some possible variation. Start with the presumption that all those terminated during the time period (which may cross into a subsequent plan year, depending on facts and circumstances) are those "affected". Then the sponsor has the right to review and determine if some of them are not affected due to those F&C (for example, an employee death). Next comes the documentation: as mentioned other times, it is advisable to amend the plan to document the 100% vesting, so it's in writing. Finally, I strongly suggest you review prior discussions by searching the Defined Benefit message board; go to the top and click on "Forums (Message Boards)". Your search term will be "partial termination" or "affected".

Might depend on the definition of your "client" relationship: CPA? TPA? attorney? etc. No matter what the answer is, your "do not give investment advice" comment might answer your own query. If it were me, I would just laugh at mention of bitcoins.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2016-title26-vol17/pdf/CFR-2016-title26-vol17-sec31-3405c-1.pdf

Sure, the documentation is better, but why force the parties to assume this legal expense if not necessary? As stated above, a well-written QDRO procedure will already include a simple method for communicating this type of information.

Agree with Effen. To elaborate, don't overlook the possibility that the real BS is someone claiming it was "frozen by statute", as an excuse upon realizing that sending the 204h notice was missed.

Very rough, about 3.6% at age 62 and 4.4% at age 65. (Sorry, no one to proof my work, so other review is welcome.)

Let's ask about this "disability plan". What is it? If it's LTD, you should be aware that most LTD plans include an offset for amounts you might be receiving as retirement income (especially if both plans are from the same employer).

You could ask for a copy of the 204(h) notice, and any other related communication.

Using MyPAA, exclusively.

You might also consider whether the 2018 limit might be more than the 2017 limit, and (if likely) whether that might mean a termination of 1/2/18 might be viable.

Use Excel?

Not always. In my state (NC), there is no definition of "legal separation" and no court action. If married parties live apart for at least 12 months, they are eligible to seek a divorce, and no court involvement prior to the divorce. Hence, for the purposes described in the reg, you may need the additional action of a court order.

As mentioned on a few prior occasions, be very careful when you consider “legal separation”. Please see Q&A 20, 22, 25, and (especially) 27 in IRS reg. 1.401a-20. In Q&A27, note the sentence: "Also, if the participant is legally separated or the participant has been abandoned (within the meaning of local law) and the participant has a court order to such effect, spousal consent is not required unless a QDRO provides otherwise." Focus on the word “and”. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2016-title26-vol6/pdf/CFR-2016-title26-vol6-sec1-401a-20.pdf

IMHO, the PA should accept a formula that is clear. The PA does not care what the parties will do with the money or how they decided to make the split. However, your description of the $24K implies something outside the plan. Is that correct? If you add $24K (or something similar) to the QDRO, that amount is part of W's segregated account, and will (probably) go to her IRA. It is not cash that she can spend. Also, at some time, she will withdraw it from her IRA, at which time it becomes part of her taxable income. If your original post "...owes W $24,000..." means it should be non-taxable to her, putting anything extra in the QDRO will transfer the tax burden on her.

Why is a judge involved? Bankruptcy?