david rigby

Well, that's part of it. Also, note the purpose of a DB retirement annuity is to provide a retirement income for the lifetime of the participant, with limited survivor benefits (primarily the spouse).

This language has its origin in IRC 414(p)(4)(A)(iii).

As a "moderator", I have often edited message titles (or occasionally, the message itself) for clarity, misspelling, etc. Do moderators still have that ability?

There may be some other similar discussions on this topic. I suggest you Search (in this Forum only), using the terms "child support" or "agency". This is just one example: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/57532-who-pays-taxes-for-kids/#comment-252778

Don't forget to search your files for a QDRO (draft or otherwise). This is easily overlooked in an employer with many locations and/or a non-centralized HR function.

Interesting. So, absent this (alleged) action, the taxable income of the owner (or perhaps the company) would greater, but each daughter's income generates more FICA tax. Is that about it?

Here is the similar discussion:

Not sure why you care. Is your task is to review the draft DRO? If so, see if you can reasonably interpret it in light of the plan provisions, and advise whether it should be "qualified". If there are ambiguities, either (a) describe them and reject the draft, or (b) describe what reasonable interpretation/solution you suggest (without re-writing the DRO).

Yeah, I agree with My2Cents. But check the document. Many documents include a provision that requires the plan to be qualified, for it to exist.

Data as of 12/30/2016 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.98 3.98 Aa 4.02 4.03 4.03 A 4.19 4.21 4.20 Baa 4.70 4.75 4.73 Avg 4.30 4.24 4.27 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.72 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.24 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.89

1. Can a QDRO be changed? Yes, but it's your responsibility (and cost) to get it done, through the court. Your ex-husband will (probably) get a voice in this. Talk to your attorney. 2. Is this a defined benefit plan? If so, saying "drawing no interest" is irrelevant because there is no individual account. If it's a defined contribution plan, then his account has (probably) been split into 2 accounts, so your portion is invested in some manner so that it can grow over time. If you don't know, ask.

This question might answer itself, but (as always) the first inquiry is "what does the plan say?"

It amuses me that an employee thinks he/she has the authority to tell the employer what to do. Just my opinion: I suggest you search these Message Boards, using the word "sham" or "fraud".

It might also be prudent to verify what DOT is shown on employment records, rather than assume a particular date.

Ideally, the reference to "set up procedures" in Post #3 is double-edged: - The external vendor should improve their procedures, and should identify those improvements to you (i.e., the plan sponsor), and - The sponsor should improve its own procedures (let's just call this "proofing").

... and paragraph ©(1)(i)(A), which seems to indicate a PA responsibility to monitor/measure actual receipt of the e-correspondence.

...but they don't have to have the exact same benefit.

Another potential confusion: usually a division of account will exclude any EE contributions/deferrals/PS additions that occur after a particular date (for example, date of separation). The original post makes no mention of that, so the parties should proceed carefully; if ambiguous, the record-keeper should not make the decision.

Well, of course you already know that the participant count is the most visible, but not the only, parameter to determine whether an audit is required.

Right. If the participant pays the AP "by check", is that intended to replace the QDRO? If so, the parties need to get the QDRO changed first.

Sort of. I've seen many qualified plans that have no special provision for disability (no 411d6 protection). Sometimes, vesting is triggered upon disability (in which case a definition is needed). But, it's not required.

I think so. Be sure to investigate the "duration of work" test, which could mean a disabled person is not eligible for SS disability benefits. Summary booklet here: https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10029.pdf

Not so subtle point that the internet already has an infinite number of monkeys.

https://www.irs.gov/irb/2016-42_IRB/ar12.html

Thanks to the internet, we know this is not true.