david rigby

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".

I doubt that. Don't forget that "reasonable" has a "market" component to it. Sure, it sounds like a lot, but it may be comparable to others. What would the plan's legal counsel charge? BTW, is the $700 an average cost, covering both DB and DC plans? Since the average DC DRO is simpler than the average DB DRO, using an average cost will effectively mean the DC plan is subsidizing the DB plan.

Hey, wait a minute. BTW, my posting a smiley face here is proof that I have a sense of humor.

Financial institution requiring .....? Who makes the rules? What does the plan say?

Duplicate post. See other post for discussion:

IMHO, report that person as "retiree receiving benefits".

Yes, yes, yes. Think of it this way: there is no excess until all the benefit liabilities have been satisfied.

It's common for plan amendments to have prospective-only effect (in some cases, mandatory). Well-written plan amendments will address this issue up front, to remove ambiguity.

Exactly! While you are getting legal advice, be sure to include advice from an actuary experienced with small plans.

Clarification for the original poster, of advice above: When Kevin C states "they are supposed to explain why", he means you are making a formal claim for benefits. Every plan is required to have claim procedures, so you should state you are making a claim, ask for a copy of the claim procedures, and expect the response to include a clear explanation. When My 2 Cents states "not your problem", he means that if the plan has mistakenly paid the benefit to someone else, that does not invalidate your claim. If your claim is the correct one, then the plan will still have to pay you.

Follow the money. In this case, that might be "watch out for who gets what fee".

I'm not sure you should describe $60K/year as "low-income".

The terms "entire balance" and "lump sum" are often used to mean the same thing. Is that in conformance with your plan provisions? The instructions for Form 1099R make generous use of the term "lump-sum", but you may wish to review for yourself.

In my observation, there is a difference between "compensation" (ie, paid to an employee) and "fee" (paid to a non-employee, including a consultant). If it's a bona fide consulting relationship, what fee that person receives should not be relevant to a qualified plan. Or do I misunderstand the question?

My understanding is that any "housing allowance" must be reasonable for the purpose designated. For example, it would (probably) not be reasonable to replace a $30,000 salary plus $10,000 housing allowance with a $40,000 housing allowance. When you suggest that 403b distribution as a housing allowance, isn't that changing something defined as "deferred compensation" into "non-taxable compensation"?

Yes, it's an operational error, but there is also a practical aspect: maybe those participants weren't paid out because they never provided the ER with an updated address. A review of this may suggest that the ER modify an HR policy (ie, outside the plan itself) to emphasize to departing employees the importance of a mailing address.

It's common to see the various limitations get mixed up. If you can identify who told you about this 25% limit, ask for a cite. That is, the reference might not be correct for a DB plan, but it may have relevance on a related item.

Has someone reviewed a draft of the DRO? If not, and the draft requires modification, it may difficult to determine how much additional time is needed.

Thanks for sharing and contributing. Enjoy.

I think there is oversimplification in this analysis. It seems to assume that prices would be unchanged. You argue for the elimination of corporate income tax, but there might be equally valid arguments for the opposite: eliminate all tax on labor.