david rigby

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.

Find a partner with TPA experience.

Exactly my point. In the past, the IRS has made official statements. Why nothing here?

IMHO, parts of 2000-40 still apply, because there is no official statement (that I can remember) from IRS otherwise. However, I agree that it's not worth the risk. As AndyH implies,we expect some more guidance "soon". As far as post-PPA permission to change, I think that expired in 2010.

Don't forget to read the plan provisions. It may be imprudent to assume the Plan Administrator has unlimited authority. Note: if Company A is involved, it may have to first document (1) it is the PA, and (2) the relevant plan provisions and claim procedures (and maybe relevant IRS statements), and (3) etc.

1. Probably OK. Nothing in the reg that implies both reductions must be equal or proportionate. 2. Although not PBGC-covered, the plan may already have an allocation procedure, to be followed.

Data as of 01/29/2016 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.05 4.05 Aa 4.04 4.16 4.10 A 4.19 4.43 4.31 Baa 5.40 5.44 5.42 Avg 4.54 4.52 4.53 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.13 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.60 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.46

Good question. PBGC instructions here: http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/500-instructions.pdf. See page 23. A majority owner may "...elect to forego receipt of all or part..." Neither this paragraph nor the referenced regulation contains any restrictions on a majority owner who may be in-pay status. Note important discussion about spouse consent.

Is the plan terminated (under its own terms) upon the death?

Might depend on what your role is. See IRC 416.

http://www.actuary.org/files/EAR_Winter2015.pdf

Yes it would be nice. However, the current IRS philosophy is "do less with less", so it probably won't happen.