david rigby

As I recall, there is also a requirement that the relevant benefit is "subject to good faith bargaining". Not sure if anyone has defined that term, but it may be possible to fail the test.

While @Peter Gulia reasonably posits/considers that maintaining/collecting any gender information for a DC plan database may be superficial and/or unnecessary, I suggest it may be explained by inertia: the gender data element is merely one of many items that were collected from the beginning of time. It is important to collect gender ID is a defined benefit plan database if that database is used for actuarial valuations and/or determining actuarial equivalency in optional forms of annuity benefit. Consider a payroll/HR data collection: is it important for an employer to have a gender ID? From a payroll perspective, maybe not; but that data collection was (and is) often used for other purposes, including passing data to providers of medical or life or disability insurance. Hence, it is just one of many data elements of what many consider a "complete" database. I have also seen such data be one of many clues when there is question about someone's identity. Also, before the days of same-sex marriage, it might be a "flag" to question whether data supplied by a vendor (or plan sponsor) contains errors. For example, suppose the data supplied contains a gender code of M for everyone, but is for a hospital known to have about 60%-80% female population; that anomaly should make you question not only the legitimacy of that data element but also ask about other data validity. Don't laugh, I've seen it.

The responsibility to file might depend on any service agreement between the plan/PA and the vendor/actuary.

No. Retirement is great!

Wow, this begs for a larger discussion. Including, what are you trying to accomplish? What problem(s) are you trying to solve? Etc. You need an experienced consulting actuary.

Not knowledgeable about the particulars of this case, but I cannot overemphasize the "just in case" concept. Keeping the old DRO is likely less expensive than the cost of a new QDRO that cancels the old QDRO. The original post includes an assumption that the ex-wife will never lose her current job. In my 4+ decades as a pension actuary, I've seen many things I thought would never happen. Actuaries often say, "if it can happen, it will eventually happen".

Back in the day (ie, just after ERISA was passed; yes, I'm that old), the common joke was Every Ridiculous Idea Since Adam.

In the Order of Precedence quoted above, note the important first word: "If". Thus, a participant could name sibling(s) as beneficiary, if affirmatively elected in advance (and subject to a likely spouse default if there is a spouse). It's not a bad idea to remind participants, every now and then, to review their beneficiary designation(s).

Right, and don't assume that a court (or the decedent's will) gets to decide. The plan provisions must be followed first. On another matter, if the $$ goes to the estate of the deceased beneficiary, keep in mind that the estate is not a natural person and (therefore) cannot open (or roll to) an IRA.

Right. The actuary can help design something to accomplish this, probably much simpler. If tip documentation is "sketchy", you may be looking for trouble.

... and you will need to provide (to an attorney) the precise name of the employer that sponsored the pension plan. Note that the rules for domestic relations orders may be different for a plan sponsored by a govt agency as compared to the rules that affect a private plan sponsor. Perhaps there is some help available at a nearby law school that sponsors a "Legal Aid Day"? Or browse the website of the Texas Bar: https://www.texasbar.com/

No legal expert, but I believe there may be a need to clarify whether such "guardian" is responsible for the minor's person or the minor's estate.

Yeah. You (or someone) will need to dive deeper into many things, including: nature of the proposed plan sponsor/employer, size of such employer, what is the goal of the sponsor, etc. It sounds like neither you nor the "tax manager" has the necessary experience, so it may be advisable to engage a professional. BTW, what is your role, and what is a "tax manager"?

This response does not answer the question: Why?

What does the plan say?

Who is responsible for preparing/submitting the DRO? Usually, it's not the participant.

Perhaps engage a licensed insurance broker/agent who will solicit multiple bids? Remember, there can be a fiduciary duty here.

Is the existing database in Microsoft Access? If so, you can probably find someone to help, such as build a user-friendly interface. Maybe engage an outside IT firm for a one-time upgrade and/or an ongoing maintenance contract (even if not in Access)?

The SPD and SMM are not issued by any agency, but by the plan sponsor. Logically, the sponsor can issue multi-language documents at its own discretion, although one might interpret the Order as forbidding any federal agency from mandating such multi-language documents. I wonder if there is any downstream affect, specifically on state/local agencies or govt units.

Have you answered your own question?

In addition, the quoted (1) and (2) have no associated timeframe.

Hold on here. The real estate total about $2.1 million, but the (now deceased) participant has an account balance of $1.5 million. The kids are trying to take all of the real estate. Sounds like some version of theft.

I have a vague recollection of a similar question in the past. Maybe you could try the Search feature above. Probably search this forum with a search term of "Roth"?

"Cryptocurrency" is NOT currency.