david rigby

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?

What does the plan say? Many (but not all) plans define a YOS as a plan year with 1000+ hours of service. BTW, it's also possible to have a freeze amendment provide something more generous than what the plan would otherwise provide.

...or the sole proprietor is an attorney.

Don't overlook the possibility that this person was never paid. (In general, there are only 2 possible answers.) Perhaps "purged" after unsuccessful attempts to locate? Hey, it's possible. Find out the approximate timeframe. Then start looking for evidence (older plan records, cancelled check, Schedule SSA, etc.) This might require action to identify a previous record-keeper and/or trustee.

Methinks that statute of limitations is not relevant. We're not talking about a crime here; either he was paid or he wasn't. (The ultimate proof of a payment is a canceled check.) Any personnel records? If you have a DOT, that might help identify a possible payout time/year.

... and the Plan should not take sides.

Nothing in the Gray Book on point, but is this close enough to help? Gray Book 2014-21 Section 415: Applicability of §415 Accrual Issue to Governmental and Church Plans Regulation §1.415(a)-1(d) provides that a DB plan subject to §411 must preclude the possibility of any benefit accrual in excess of the §415 limit. Does this apply to governmental and non-electing church plans? RESPONSE Regulation §1.415(b)-1(a)(7)(iii) contains a special rule that provides that a DB plan that is not subject to §411 is not required to limit the accrued benefit until the benefit is payable. Therefore, assuming the requirements for asserting government or non-electing church plan status are met, the §411 restriction described above would not apply and accrued benefits could be reduced to satisfy the §415 maximum benefit limits. Copyright © 2014, Enrolled Actuaries Meeting All rights reserved by Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. Permission is granted to print or otherwise reproduce a limited number of copies of the material on the CD-ROM for personal, internal, classroom, or other instructional use, on the condition that the foregoing copyright notice is used so as to give reasonable notice of the copyright of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. This consent for free limited copying without prior consent of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting does not extend to making copies for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for inclusion in new collective works, or for sale or resale. BTW, I vote for common sense.

Echoing QDROphile, defining "equity" might not be so simple. If the first spouse pursues this, might the court exhibit some skepticism and say, "You had ample opportunity. Why didn't you file an actual QDRO?" Of course, I don't know. Just pointing out that the non-action of Spouse 1 might have consequences.

Is this a new discussion? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php/topic/58563-qdro-submission-after-participant-retirement/

I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.

Consider: - asking prior actuary(s) what records they have. - doing a sample. Maybe get W-2 for half a dozen EEs? Note, even if W-2 is not accurate because it may not reflect the plan's definition of comp, it still might help get close.

There have been a few prior discussions on the topic of (or similar to) embezzlement. As I recall, at least one of them had a reasonable suggestion. Try using the Search function. Suggested key words include embezzle, embezzlement, embezzled, theft, etc.

Fraud? It may be hasty to use that (very strong) word. Mr. Green could argue that he did nothing wrong in asking if a QDRO had been filed, and the fault (if any) lies with ex-Mrs. Green for failing to obtain a valid QDRO. I suggest the most important pieces of advice above are found in Post #2 and #3. The rest is applesauce.

No. The original post was edited to remove the advertising link, because BL is an advertiser-supported site. The information in the post is OK, but not the advertising link. If you disagree, please post a reply.

Talk to those in the biz, or retired. Ask their opinions, whether or not they might be a valid partner. Just like a job search, your primary task is to gather information, which comes from those with experience.