david rigby

Don't know how the DOL will treat the draft attachment. But it's probably not as bad as no attachment.

If you create an interim valuation (or an estimate), isn't that a plan feature that is outside normal plan operation? You could: - segregate now, with no interim gain/loss, or - reply that the DRO is not a QDRO, since it requests something not in the plan. Any precedent?

What is your relationship to the plan? to the Plan Administrator? Assuming it's only a typo, and you mean 401(k) plan, if you are the TPA, perhaps you will want to express an opinion and then back out, saying this is a job for the plan's ERISA counsel.

Just my opinion: don't remove. Most important: pick a method and stick to it, and make sure everyone in your office does it the same way.

Data as of 30-Sep-15 (Wednesday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.00 4.00 Aa 4.14 4.11 4.13 A 4.30 4.42 4.36 Baa 5.45 5.24 5.35 Avg 4.63 4.44 4.54 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.13 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.71 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.60

Technically, it's up to the judge, not Mom or Dad. But, Mike's advice is right on: if she is "in control", she gets her opinions and suggested DRO in front of the judge, preferably first. If your "competent legal advice" is not familiar with QDRO's, keep looking. Caveat One: The sample QDRO might be useful. However, a defined benefit plan is very different from a defined contribution plan when it's time to split under a QDRO. Don't try to fit one type of plan into a sample that was designed for the other type. Caveat Two: Two employers, but don't assume there are only two plans. He may have been covered under multiple plans at either or both employers. Caveat Three: If he has taken a distribution from a previous plan, and rolled it to an IRA, the company will no longer have jurisdiction and a QDRO will not work. However, your attorney should investigate this possibility since the amount rolled over (or a portion) might be covered by the original sentence in the divorce settlement.

Maybe. Check the document. It's possible the document has language that will automatically create a plan termination if the plan sponsor undergoes bankruptcy, or dissolution, etc.

Enrolled Actuaries have a 3-year renewal cycle. Each cycle requires at least 36 hours; of these, at least 18 hours must be "core" material. At least 2 hours must be related to ethics. BTW, one cycle I was slow getting my credits, completing only 37, and at the last minute. I'm not claiming this is why the JBEA audited me, but I'm just saying. I vowed to make sure that all future renewal cycles include credits at least 50% more than the minimum.

Admittedly unlikely, it's possible to have a one-participant plan where the participant is not owner, shareholder, partner, or sole proprietor.

Don't forget about the commencement issues mentioned in Reg. 1.415(a)-1(f)(7). https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.415(a)-1

Different ages is not surprising. Also important is how much different, and what ages? If the ages are 50,51,and 52 the next step will not be the same compared to ages 30,31,and 32.

Pays taxes on it? Not rolled to an IRA? At $100K, he is saving $2,900 in FICA taxes. Seems not cost-effective, even if the ATAP comments above are ignored.

Whose responsibility is this? The TPA may have encountered something that looks like under-withholding of taxes, but is that the concern of the TPA? The TPA might draw attention to this as a courtesy, mainly to confirm the ER has provided the information intended. However, it seems unlikely the TPA has any place in objecting to this documentation, or asking for any additional explanation. If the ER confirms ("yes, that W-2 comp is correct"), the TPA accepts it and moves on.

It's not exclusive to law firms. There are firms in the benefit consulting arena that use the word "partner" as a title only.

Oops, I can't read, got two values mixed up. Correct.

I get Mike's 6.76% annualized inflation rate. But take note that only gets you back to even, not enough for any positive indexing.

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/employee_benefits/events_cle/practitioner_q_as1/irs_treasury_qa.html For the source document, click above link, then click 2015.

As stated previously, you may need more than just the 415 reg, since the plan provisions are also important. Attached are two separate Q&As from the Gray Book, 1999-30 and 2008-48, that reiterate the IRS position. (In case you are not familiar with the Gray Book, it is the result of informal discussions between actuaries and the IRS. It carries no official weight, but can be useful in identifying IRS viewpoint for situations and questions not directly - or not completely - addressed in regulatory guidance.) GrayBook 1999.30 and 2008.48.pdf

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Independent-Contractor-Self-Employed-or-Employee

I'm very sympathetic to Carol's dilemma. IMHO, this is another example of how the PA can become aware of (potential) fraud, with no method to address it. Who stands up to fight this fraud? Whose job is it to look out for a creditor being the second name on the account (which is the specific fraud considered in the original post)? (BTW, even if that is true, is "fraud" the correct word?) - Can the PA bring suit? Continental Airlines tried that a few years back (search for "sham divorce") and got spanked by the court. - Can the PA refuse to pay? That seems unlikely. - Can the PA demand a different checking account? What plan provision and/or ERISA provision would permit this? - Can the PA ask a court to take action? If the court says, "you may be right, but you have no standing", what does the PA do then? - If the Plan has no J&S provisions, then the payment likely will be a lump sum (perhaps very soon after severance of employment), leaving scant opportunity to ask questions, much less take any action. Upon further reflection, this joint account might be a simple, clever, and legal method for this creditor to get paid: the money and the 1099R go to the participant, which is all that is required of the Plan. Perhaps the more difficult question is when the PA has reason to believe the third party is manipulating the participant in some manner, or using Carol's technical term "sketchy", such as a scheming cousin, nephew, etc.

No disrespect to the original poster, but I have doubt that this is a qualified plan. Let's go back to the word "bylaws". Normally, a plan does not have bylaws. It has a written plan document. (There might also be administrative procedures. One hopes those are written also.) If an ERISA-qualified plan, you can request a copy of the actual plan document. It also has a summary plan description (SPD) that must be provided to all participants. Do you have the SPD? Any other employee communication?

Just a few random thoughts: - More money spent on attorney(s)? - More money spent on a second auditor? (Maybe a third to break the tie?) - Doubts raised in the mind of lenders? Real problems with existing loan covenants? - Requirement(s) to address an adverse opinion in the annual report/proxy? - Questions from SEC? - Questions and/or legal action from stockholders? - Could adverse plan audit trigger some adverse corporate audit? If it's not significant $$, someone might question the utility of spending additional administrative $ to chase it.

5% owner? What is meant by "... with respect to plan corrections..."?

Reg. 1.411(a)-5 was issued prior to the age change: ERISA originally used age 22, later amended to age 18. When describing service that may be excluded, the reg reads, "...year of service completed before he attains age 22..." I think the important word is "completed". BTW, this was amended in REA (1984) and the age 18 applies for plan years beginning in 1985 or later.

... or some other plan that falls under the definition of "non-qualified plan"?