david rigby

My condolences for your loss. Normally, the plan is the only vehicle for defining both the benefit and any (potential) beneficiary. For example, most plans, if no beneficiary is specified, will include a sequence of others to define a beneficiary (such as: first children, then parents, then siblings, etc). This may not apply in your case. If you have not done so, ask the Plan Administrator (which might be contacted thru the HR department of the company) to explain the beneficiary situation to you. To my ear, having a "friend" defined as the beneficiary is very unusual, so there might be more relevant facts. I'm unsure about your phrase "override the beneficiary", but an estate lawyer may tell you that would be possible only if you can prove fraud or some other incorrect application of the plan rules. At least for me, it's not obvious whether you would have any standing to submit a DRO. BTW, the lawyer may also tell you that the "estate bills" are the responsibility of the estate, not you. (I'm not a lawyer.)

Well, you guys know the legal details better than I, but.... The "3(16) provider" is not the employer and does not have responsibility for employment decisions. When the provider asks the ER (as suggested by Belgarath) "please confirm that this person is not an employee", that unequivocally puts the burden of proof on the ER. If the provider knows the ER is lying (thru whatever source of information), the next logical step is to resign. Or have I misread what's really going on?

Does the plan define disability as a distributable event?

Data as of April 28, 2017 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.85 3.85 Aa 3.93 3.92 3.93 A 4.13 4.11 4.12 Baa 4.51 4.62 4.57 Avg 4.19 4.13 4.16 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.63 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.07 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.77

Reversion? See plan document provisions. Also see IRC section 4980.

Similar to many other answers here: what does your attorney say? (I know, the original poster is trying to get free advice. Just remember, it's worth what you pay for it.) But seriously, the original post is fraught with confusing shorthand and grammar problems, so I might not understand the main point(s). Could it be this? The post refers to the participant, who was divorced about 20 years ago, remarried about 18 years ago, and is not yet retired? The original QDRO was silent on whether the ex-spouse is entitled to a QPSA? The original poster (who might be the participant or the ex-spouse or someone else) seems to believe the ex-spouse is not entitled to QPSA and (therefore) the current spouse is entitled? Is this about the QPSA or the QJSA, or both? As mentioned above, a QDRO can be modified by the court, but (maybe) the court will be reluctant to "re-open" the previously agreed terms? The court might have no qualm about changes if agreed by both parties, but it's unclear why the participant would agree to give up something? How about whether the plan (technically, the Plan Administrator) has opined on what it thinks about the QPSA and/or QJSA under the existing QDRO? Note to original poster: you do not have to post the actual terms of the QDRO on this message board, but you should have a discussion with an attorney who is familiar with QDRO's.

This concept seems meaningful only in terms of a DC plan. Also, it seems likely a plan-to-plan transfer implies moving assets in kind. Possible, but I think most plan sponsors and/or trustees would prefer to avoid it.

Agree with prior replies. As described in original post, this is a fairly common ER window. Discrimination testing is needed on the front end, but (probably) not on the back end. However, there are communication and timing issues that can be important. Many pension actuaries have experience that can be useful to the plan sponsor.

I'm sorry to report that Moody's was unable/unwilling to retroactively send me the March 31 results. However, they did provide one "average" rate: 4.23%.

If so, then maybe you could send the 1099-R to the Treasury. Oh never mind, they don't pay taxes.

First, what is meant by "a QDRO was ordered"? Has a QDRO been prepared? submitted to the plan administrator? been approved by the PA? (Don't overlook the last item since only the PA can determine if a DRO is a QDRO.) Second, the plan may (but is not required to) permit your benefit to commence prior to his. If not permitted by the plan, the DRO cannot add this provision. Check with the PA and also review how the DRO addresses this issue.

http://www.contingenciesonline.com/contingenciesonline/20100708?pg=15#pg15

Agree, forever is a good recommendation. However, that does not imply paper is the only viable storage medium.

Doesn't the statute say "...in excess of..."?

IMHO, it's hasty to assume an oversight/mistake when the participant did not change the beneficiary at divorce. No one in this discussion, including the sister, is aware of any "horse trading" in the property settlement. It is possible the participant's inaction is exactly what the parties intended.

Carol, not trying to be snarky, but it appears that you have only one claim (ie, the sister). If I'm reading correctly, the PA should act on that claim, approve/deny/etc. However, that is (might be?) different from "telling" the ex-wife to submit a claim. Am I just being picky?

Caution. The Employer should not assume that FICA has already been applied. Check your records.

Sorry for delay posting the March 31 rates. Moody's tells me they had some technical problems and promised to let me know when the month-end results will be available.

This might also depend on the definition of "we" and "Administrator".

Yeah, tossing the document seems silly to me, and does nothing to prove "I didn't read it." Nor is there any harm with reading it. The primary duty of the PA is to make sure the death benefit is paid to the beneficiary, as properly defined in the document. So the participant elected/created this trust, but is it meaningful to the plan?

Need any help with that?

Yes.

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?