david rigby

This is the reason many plans define the eligibility using Vesting Service.

Is the wife already deferring the max?

Has the $3,000 really been "sent" to the IRS? Or is it in some account, waiting to be sent? Also, not an answer to your question, but "what the...?"

Yeah, that is still an odd use of "accrues" (as far as I've seen).

I'll give this a shot, but not necessarily confident in my response: I think whether this payment is "roll-able" may depend on exactly how it's defined in the plan document. For example, if it is defined as a death benefit, it might be roll-able, but if it's defined as part of the annuity stream, I'll suggest it is not roll-able. BTW, I really don't like the manner in which you use "accrued". Definitely not in conformance with most usage in the context of a DB plan. Maybe it's just me.

Does the plan definition of beneficiary answer the question? (Read it twice.)

The employees of the other attorney get a W-2 that has the employer name and EIN for Jelly?

I'm perplexed by the over-emphasis on the S&P500. If you are unable to get accurate records and are forced to estimate the earnings, pick one or more indexes that reflect the actual (types of) investments in your account.

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.