david rigby

Your attorney (make sure that person is knowledgeable about QDROs) may get some value by reading/searching this discussion forum: https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/forum/89-qualified-domestic-relations-orders-qdros/

Yes, IRC 414(p)(5), includes "To the extent provided in any qualified domestic relations order...."

No matter what the resolution of the original post, I suggest rethinking the plan provision that requires suspension. Who cares if the retiree/employee gets paid and collects a pension? Is that such a bad thing? This is an HR policy issue (ie, do we want to rehire this person?). A mandatory suspension, when there is no more accrual, may serve only to interfere with corporate HR policy and/or a desire to rehire someone. The Plan provisions should align with corporate philosophy. The mindset of "suspend on rehire" is probably a carryover from the mindset that (a) the company will always exist, (b) the plan will always exist, and (c) all employees work full-time. This mindset exists throughout ERISA and other legislation. Obviously out-of-date. This is an especially awful plan provision when the plan uses a very low hours requirement to determine "rehire", such as "at least 20 hours per week". This example may help (and it doesn't matter if the plan is frozen): Imagine a retired bank teller, who is glad to help out in the summer months, when other tellers take vacation. The rehired teller works 35-40 hours a week for 10 weeks. The retiree is happy, and the employer is happy. Although the retiree works full-time hours, the total hours is no-where close to earning additional accrual. Suspending the benefit serves no purpose whatsoever. Some plans (and some consultants) are unable to make that distinction. Forest? Trees?

Frozen for 10 years! There is no more accrual, so why does anyone care about the suspension? I suggest amending the plan to remove it.

Some plans suspend only if the rehire is prior to NRD. Is the plan frozen? If so, should the plan remove any suspension language?

Is this required? Is it related to the expectation that the sponsor will be filing for a new D-letter every five years? If so, and there is no new 5-year filing, what is the point of restatement?

EFAST does not have any forms prior to 2009.

The 5558 instructions include this statement for Line 2:

There may be prior relevant discussion threads. Use the "Search" feature, using keyword "murder" and/or "slayer".

Check the definition of "professional" in the PBGC statute and/or reg. ERISA section 4021(c).

Conversely, they don't have to be divorced for the spouse (ex- or otherwise) to get an award under a QDRO.

This photo was apparently "modified", but it's still awesome. http://www.9news.com/news/local/next/the-rockies-celebrate-pi-day-with-photoshop/422617504

The plan sponsor (separate from the TPA) needs an ERISA counsel.

Um, yeah.

I'm not aware of any changes. My understanding is the "postmark rule" still applies, providing you remember that means a USPS postmark, not a mark from your office postal meter.

I might be willing to invest $1. Risk vs. reward.

I think the first sentence of the Response is a reasonable answer, and is consistent with the EOB.

For what it's worth, this was discussed in the Gray Book, in 2004. Gray Book 2004-42 Other DB Plan Issues: Date of Retirement and Required Minimum Distributions Treas. Reg. §1.401(a)(9)-2, A-2(a) provides that except in the case of a 5%-owner, the “required beginning date” is April 1 of the calendar year following the later of the calendar year in which the employee attains age 70-1/2 or the calendar year in which the employee retires from employment with the employer maintaining the plan. If December 31, 2003 is the employee’s last day at work, and the last day for which he is paid or entitled to payment of wages, is that the date of “retirement”. Or is January 1, 2004, the first day he is not employed, the retirement date? When is the employee’s required beginning date? RESPONSE “Retirement” is the last day worked, not the definition of retirement date in the plan. What date is an employee’s last day worked is a facts and circumstances determination. The facts and circumstances are based on the employer’s practice concerning the last day an individual is considered an employee. The above Response is a summary, prepared by representatives of the Program Committee, of the oral responses to the question posed to certain staff members of the Treasury and IRS, which represent only personal views of the individuals who provided them. Accordingly, the Response does not necessarily represent the positions of the Treasury or the IRS and cannot be relied upon by any taxpayer for any purpose. Copyright © 2004, Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. All rights reserved by Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. Permission is granted to print or otherwise reproduce a limited number of copies of the material on the diskette for personal, internal, classroom, or other instructional use, on the condition that the foregoing copyright notice is used so as to give reasonable notice of the copyright of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. This consent for free limited copying without prior consent of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting does not extend to making copies for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for inclusion in new collective works, or for sale or resale.

Due date description is in DOL reg. 2520.104b-10(c). Or, you can see this DOL summary. https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/publications/rdguide.pdf

Different (and important) issue: does the salesperson understand the problem(s)?

My hunch, and hope, is Mike intends definition number 2: 2. fidelity; faithfulness.

This seems like a perfect of example of encouraging anti-selection. The Plan would be the loser.

I'm unsure that "divorce" is related in any way to the question of a DRO. In many cases, there is a property settlement (or similar term) that precedes a divorce.

Data as of Feb. 28, 2017 (Tuesday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.84 3.84 Aa 3.92 3.95 3.94 A 4.11 4.11 4.11 Baa 4.49 4.60 4.55 Avg 4.17 4.13 4.15 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.70 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.17 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.82

Let's add a little clarification to the sequence of events, at least approximately. You want to prepare a draft DRO, and have it reviewed by the Plan Administrator. When they say OK, only then do you get the court to issue it's final order. At that time, the PA will review the court's order, confirm that it agrees with the previously-reviewed draft, and declare it to be "qualified".