david rigby

Data as of 12/31/2015 (Thursday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.04 4.04 Aa 4.21 4.23 4.22 A 4.41 4.46 4.44 Baa 5.58 5.42 5.50 Avg 4.73 4.54 4.64 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.53 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.01 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.76

Agreed, but does this imply/require a prior intent of confidentiality? Even if no prior intent (likely, most plan sponsors have never heard of 7525 and would not anticipate any level of confidentiality with the ERPA or EA), what if an IRS request arises later? Is there a requirement for the EA/ERPA to invoke the confidentiality relationship?

Peter, your explanation seems to coincide with IRC 7525. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7525 Do you have any comments about that section?

There may already be language that covers it, in a generic sense.

Yeah, what Kevin said. BTW, although probably not significant, the word "transfer" is technically incorrect. A better choice is "direct rollover" or "automatic rollover". (Not to be picky, but sometimes the correct terminology is important.)

Yes. The NC Bar was hearing a case on "unauthorized practice of law". There may be a detailed summary on their website; my recollection is that those people authorized to "practice" under ERISA (enrolled actuaries, accountants, attorneys, enrolled agents, etc.) are not in violation of the UPL statute as long as they stick to the ERISA matters. Don't assume this applies in any other jurisdiction.

Clarity needed. Are you referring to tax withholding at time of payment or to whether the pension is included in taxable income?

Not subject to QJSA by ERISA, but might be subject to those (or similar) rules by plan provision(s).

Seem possible that this CPA has other clients for whom the result is a 415 violation. Your best revenge could be to be the white knight, offering to help fix them. Eventually, the clients will probably drop the CPA, but keep you.

Oops, typo, fat fingers. Yes.

Perhaps I misunderstand the situation and/or desired result. 1. Suppose the 415 limit = 200K, and the accrued benefit = 201K. Result, can't pay more than 200K as life annuity. 2. Suppose the 50%J&S benefit is $201K reduced by 10% = ~ $181K. Result: the plan can pay the $190K J&S benefit. 3. Amend the plan (maybe?) to change the 50%J&S factor to 95%. Result: $201 x .95 = ~ $191K, still less than the 415 limit, so it can be paid. Is this what the sponsor is trying to accomplish? If so, the plan must be amended first.

No vote. Just an opinion.

... and the plan has to include the proper language. For example, if you want to pay the 50% J&S annuity, make sure the plan provisions include the proper (amended) definition(s) of actuarial equivalent.

You might also ask the auditor for an opinion. My observation is that auditors prefer e-copies of everything.

This sounds like the owners are putting additional capital into their company, and the amount just happens to be the net amount of the paycheck(s). If so, this is a non-event to the plan (and to everyone else), so no action is needed with respect to tax withholding, 401(k) deductions, etc. Am I missing something?

40% vested in what? If this is ownership in a portion of the company (rather than ownership thru an ESOP), then you should probably look to whatever documentation you received when you were "...given a piece of the company..."

By "account", it appears this is a DC (not money-purchase) plan. - Is that correct? - Does he need spouse signature to take a distribution to IRA?

The role of the original poster may be relevant. Counsel? If you are the TPA/consultant, then you may wish to step away from the line that looks like legal advice. This situation begs for the advice, "Please talk to your ERISA counsel. If you need a referral, I can provide a couple of names."

1. what does the doc say? 2. Not likely. What does the doc say? 3. Follow the doc. 4. Vesting might not change due to any event after DOT. What does the doc say?

How is interest determined? If it's a fixed rate, this might be a cash balance benefit. If it's based on market earnings (like a DC plan), then it might be a DC plan (notwithstanding its placement within a DB document).

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php/topic/25826-short-plan-year-and-entry-dates/

or any later date.

IRC 1563 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1563

Unsure if I understand all your parameters, so I'll ask questions: - Is 414(p)(3) violated? - Is 414(p)(4)(A)(iii) violated? BTW, I applaud any draft QDRO that includes affirmative clear identification of what happens if he dies first or she dies first, both before and after commencement date.

Austin, I think you missed the sarcasm in mbozek's post.