david rigby

Does not affect the April 15 due date for DB quarterly contributions, if applicable, although there has been a heated debate about this, on one of the Message Boards.

Cite: https://www.irs.gov/irb/2009-50_IRB/ar05.html. Reg. 1.430(d)-1(f)(4). Published in the Federal Register 10/15/09. It can be easy to misread the exact cite of sections/subsections/paragraphs/subparagraphs, so I might have made a mistake. You can search for the phrase, "probability of benefit payments..."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/409A See 409A(a)(2)(A) Distributions, In general... Note after subsection (v), the word "or" This is modified by subsection (a)(2)(B(i), which deals with "Specified Employees".

Link to 03/31/16 Federal Register: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-03-31/pdf/2016-07217.pdf

It seems this depends entirely on the terms of the SERP. Just because he is 65, there is no requirement that the ER stop employing him. If so, then he can continue 401k contributions the same as any other Employee. But, since you say "executive", check the terms of the employment agreement, if any.

Data as of 03/31/2016 (Thursday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.72 3.72 Aa 3.81 3.73 3.77 A 4.05 4.01 4.03 Baa 4.89 4.91 4.90 Avg 4.25 4.09 4.17 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.08 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.50 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.32

Seriously. Why isn't the plan sponsor asking the CPA?

Our IT folks have multiple such scans, for emails both directions. They are network-based, not "Outlook add-ins", since IT would not trust that level of review.

It might be the "mailbox rule". Was it e-sent or postmarked by X date?

Changing the name of the plan is (usually) accomplished via plan amendment. So, the governing authority can amend the plan to change the name any time it desires. However, your question might be related to the "inner workings" of the EFAST system.

Unless the CPA is also an attorney, it's time to get a real attorney involved.

Who is the authority to adopt or amend the plan? If it's the BOD, it might not be important for any Trustees to sign.

Again, because they won't correspond with you, it's possible they don't have (or haven't approved) the draft DRO as being a valid QDRO (does NOT matter if the court signed it, since the company must review it for compliance with the plan itself). Now, you state there has been a change of corporate structure/merger, etc. This is another reason for you to be skeptical that the company has the information. Send it again, with a polite cover letter that the original may never have been received/filed/approved. Keep copies of what you sent. Date everything. Important: if the draft is approved or not, they will tell you. If you have never received any confirmation, you should be very skeptical that the process has been completed.

Caesar was killed one day after eating some Pi.

It is (probably) not the judge's responsibility to send it to the PA. Your original post states the company won't "answer any letters". Best guess why they won't correspond with you is they don't have the QDRO. Send it.

What is meant by "filed with the courts"? Has the company received the QDRO? Reviewed it? Acknowledged that it is valid?

Seems like you may have multiple plan years of concern (since 2008?). It would be prudent for sponsor to consider getting advice from ERISA counsel.

Is the potential suspension indefinite? Is that reasonable?

After re-reading this, my best guess is that this cannot (should not?) be answered on this Message Board. Proper answers probably require a very careful reading of the plan provisions. That careful reading should also include review of what precedent (if any) already exists, with questions to the Plan Administrator such as, "Do you have any prior examples?" "Provision X can be interpreted in multiple ways, so is there any formal administrative decision about provision X?" While it's not what you want to hear, I suggest you need to engage additional help, probably an Enrolled Actuary experienced with this general topic. Just my opinion.

First, follow the plan document. Likely, it already contains guidance. Second, while many plans contain language that suspends the monthly benefit during the period of re-employment, I urge plan sponsors to consider removing this provision if the plan is frozen. (That is, if the participant can't get additional accrual during re-employment, what value is there in a suspension?)

Very unlikely the document is silent. - Does it define a "pre-retirement survivor" benefit? Does it say "surviving spouse"? - If benefit is defined payable to "the surviving spouse", the correct answer might be "no benefits are payable". But, if the participant is divorced, watch out for a QDRO.

The common usage (but not 100%) of the term "retirement" usually includes a separation of employment. Most qualified plans are created for the purpose of providing "retirement income". Who says the ER will rehire him? If the ER says (in advance) it will rehire him, both could be participating in a fraud. The statute is quite clear that a plan may permit in-service distribution at NRD. Since the proposed transaction is clearly not NRD, it could strongly imply an intent to circumvent the law. BTW, if this EE is an HCE, a discriminatory practice could magnify the problem.

Data as of 02/29/16 (Monday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.84 3.84 Aa 3.92 3.93 3.93 A 4.13 4.27 4.20 Baa 5.23 5.35 5.29 Avg 4.43 4.35 4.39 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.13 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.50 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.31

For this set of questions, advice from your tax attorney will be much more useful than this Q&A.

"We?" Isn't the sponsor in charge of setting terms of the plan? But seriously, it appears to be an amendment showing "favor" to one person, but that is prohibited for HCEs, not for NHCEs. Do you have any other reason to believe it could be discriminatory and/or inadvisable?