david rigby

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/

Duplicate post in another Forum. Reponses are posted in: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php/topic/59483-acp-refund-correction-method/

Got link?

Data as of 08/31/2016 (Wednesday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.24 3.24 Aa 3.35 3.39 3.37 A 3.54 3.56 3.55 Baa 4.15 4.22 4.19 Avg 3.68 3.60 3.64 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.07 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.37 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.00

Ask prior TPA why they did it that way?

"It depends on what the court order said." Caution: from the plan's viewpoint, it depends on what the QDRO says, not the divorce decree and/or property settlement agreement.

Glad to help. Please send me your contact information to: davidp.rigby@yahoo.com

Got several, in NC, GA, SC, VA, DC. Do you have a geographic consideration?

Yes, this is the essential question. BTW, no one on these Message Boards can answer that for you; it is a question that should be directed to your company's HR department.

For those not familiar with Derrin: http://benefitslink.com/modperl/qa.cgi?db=qa_who_is_employer

It might be useful to: - identify the parties, - identify the attorney(s), if any, - identify any relevant dates (if not already in the DRO), - state whether the plan administrator has reviewed and approved a draft of the DRO.

Very unusual request. Is the requested information related to the TPA fee? any other fee? If not, ask the auditor for some documentation why the requested items are relevant. BTW, it's pretty common for benefit plan audits to have some of the "newest" employees of the audit firm, so consider the possibility that someone is just following a checklist, whether or not it has a bearing on the particular situation.

Isn't it well-known that a 403(b) plan cannot be merged into a 401(a) plan, or vice versa? Perhaps it is appropriate to use air-quotes: "consultant". Perhaps there are some fees available for cleaning up the other mergers referenced in the original post?

Documentation can be important, even for simple actions. This transaction certainly appears to be a rollover (or five). Maybe page 4 of the 1099R instructions, particularly the reference to "non-spouse designated beneficiary", is relevant to the original question? https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1099r.pdf

Is this a qualified plan or NQ plan? Governmental? Non-profit?

Is this plan audited? If so, the auditor should have (might have?) opined on this in the past. Be careful to verify your statement, "...has elected not to be subject to ERISA...". I've seen this before, where someone assumed "not elected" but a (very) old election later turned up.

I don't know what this means. Just in case, remember that fraud is a bad thing.

My understanding is: - the estate cannot elect a direct rollover; therefore the 20% default withholding does not apply; - the "other default" withholding will apply:10%; however, the estate has the right to elect zero withholding (just like any other payee, using a W-4P). - use the estate's TIN, probably different from the decedent's SSN and also different from the executor's SSN.

Data as of 07/29/16 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.25 3.25 Aa 3.31 3.40 3.36 A 3.51 3.56 3.54 Baa 4.10 4.23 4.17 Avg 3.64 3.61 3.63 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.88 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.21 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 1.90

How do you (or someone) decide whether "may" applies?