david rigby

Possibly something at the BLS or EBSA? http://www.bls.gov/crp/ http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/benefits/2016/benefits_retirement.htm https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/researchers/statistics/retirement-bulletins/private-pension-plan Center for Retirement Research (Boston College) http://crr.bc.edu// Pension Research Council http://www.pensionresearchcouncil.org/ Pension Rights Center http://www.pensionrights.org/ Let us know if you find something worth sharing.

Minor caution: It can be a payroll system issue. A payroll system should include test(s) to make sure only those eligible for catch-up exceed the 401k limit, and also include the appropriate total (k-limit + catch-up limit). But otherwise, what rcline46 said.

Agreed, that is interesting. Likely, there is some practicality behind the reasoning, or some lobbying. Nevertheless, it seems to be overkill to worry about "appointment" vs. "termination", etc. Hakuna Matata.

...because it's eligible for rollover.

Peter's Q is illustrating a point about "termination" of the service provider. While his hypothetical situation is not the usual understanding of that phrase, IMHO that section of Schedule C should not be omitted when there is only a one-year service agreement. Note this sentence in the instructions: "Include a description of any material disputes or matters of disagreement concerning the termination, even if resolved prior to the termination." Thus, the point of this item on the Schedule C is not to identify the service provider, but to identify problems or disagreements between the service provider and the plan sponsor. The timing, as described by My2Cents, seems appropriate.

IMHO, your premise (plan termination) is not one of the conditions being addressed by the Notice. See, for example, the fifth paragraph of the Background section. Then notice the first sentence of the next paragraph, which appears to be concerned with an ongoing plan. Therefore, your lump sum payout on plan termination is not affected by this Notice. But, if I've read it wrong, please let me know.

Data as of 09/30/2016 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.44 3.44 Aa 3.46 3.51 3.49 A 3.64 3.68 3.66 Baa 4.26 4.31 4.29 Avg 3.79 3.74 3.77 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.03 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.38 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.10

Just my opinion, but that question sounds like part of your service agreement.

Lots of variations. For example, the average age of the population affects this sensitivity, as well as the relative amounts of liability at each age. (Some plans have no retirees, some plans have many.) The expected asset return may be part of your analysis, but it varies based on how the assets are invested, and does not affect the plan liability (usually).

Is the claim (in the original post) supported by the SSA instructions? Perhaps whoever is making this "you don't have to file" statement is willing to supply his/her reasoning and/or cite(s).

Certain only? Possible, but unusual. Is this a qualified plan?

Depends on the terms of the plan and the terms of the QDRO. Might be questions that you should direct to the Employer/plan sponsor. By the way, have you sent the DRO to the plan sponsor? Only the plan sponsor can review a DRO to determine if it is "qualified", which is when it becomes a QDRO.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-16-51.pdf

How can the Plan dictate employment policy?

It depends. Who made the error? Really, the answer might not be so obvious.

As a gentle reminder, IRC 414(p)(6)(B), states: "(B) Plan to establish reasonable procedures Each plan shall establish reasonable procedures to determine the qualified status of domestic relations orders and to administer distributions under such qualified orders." (emphasis added) In my observation, this rarely happens.

I have never seen a plan document that did not already address this situation, usually with language something like, "If the Participant dies before the Benefit Commencement Date..." So....what does the plan say?

Don't forget vesting. Don't forget TH.

...and check to verify whether any proposed action is subject to collective bargaining in advance.

Older discussion from 2007: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php/topic/35378-does-a-db-plan-need-an-investment-policy-statement/

Is this relevant to your situation: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php/topic/59448-trust-as-beneficiary/

Hey fellow actuaries, the 2017 HATFA rates are available: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/funding-yield-curve-segment-rates

My sympathy for your loss. If you contact the employer (ie, the sponsor of the plan), they might refer you to contact Fidelity. If so, don't think of this as a brush-off, but is probably a form of "out-sourcing", with day-to-day administrative responsibilities transferred to Fidelity. Austin is correct that you should inquire about the plan's default definition of beneficiary. It is not necessary to provide all the personal information for all the survivors, only for those who meet the beneficiary default.

Actually, "punishment" is partially correct, but also misleading. TH rules can affect small plans that are exactly identical to large plans, except for the relative number of Key EEs. Is that a logical reason to impose stronger N-D tests? A little analysis of the history of non-discrimination rules will make it clear that TH was created long before the 401a4 rules. If we had a little common sense in Washington, they would review all the N-D rules taken together, and find ways to simplify. However, those of use who have been around know that anything that goes in with the label of "simplification" comes out with the description of "complification".

Also posted in another Forum. Look for responses here: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php/topic/59499-us-citizens-working-for-chilean-sub-of-us-parent-us-plan-coverage-options/