david rigby

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"?

When we say things like "... does the record-keeper permit or allow...", is there concern that the record-keeper starts to look like a fiduciary? - Is there a service agreement that defines this service? - If so, should that SA already address some of these other issues?

Yes. However, there still may be a legal and/or accounting advisor to the employer.

The TPA might also choose to provide a FYI to the sponsor's attorney and/or auditor.

Step 1. Hire an actuary.

Perhaps the PA might consider reversing everything and starting over, especially with a real QDRO?

referring to the DB question.

Might the plan's vesting definitions make this irrelevant?

The reason that ERISA created the requirement to have a written plan document is so that all parties (plan, TPA, participant, etc.) can follow it in uniform manner. There is no "industry standard" that alters the plan provisions. Maybe the sponsor needs a new record-keeper.

Data as of 31-Aug-15 (Monday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.15 4.15 Aa 4.26 4.18 4.22 A 4.36 4.49 4.43 Baa 5.43 5.28 5.36 Avg 4.68 4.53 4.61 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.30 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.88 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.70

Please tell us what these other things are.

Gray Book 2012-5 includes this statement in the question, not in the answer: Gray Book 2012-14 includes this statement in the answer: Thus, the IRS has two indirect references on the applicability of RP 2000-40: Gray Book 2012-14 and Reg. 1.430(g)-1(b). The lack of a simple and direct statement from the IRS to answer this question strikes me as inadequate. IMHO, you may be able to build a case for saying that the permission in section 3.13 is still valid (frankly, I'm shocked that the IRS would not retain this particular permission), not that I'm going to push it.

I'm not so sure it's that simple. Has the IRS stated that Rev. Proc. 2000-40 is invalid? (Maybe they have. If so, please tell me.) Sure, some parts of it are no longer valid (such as all the non-UC funding methods), but that condition may not apply to the entire Rev. Proc. Should we assume that section 3.13 has been invalidated in the absence of any clear statement from the IRS?

Usually, "is mailed" refers to a postmark, not the day you drop it in the box.

Effen is correct. Sorry if I gave the impression that a partial distribution was permitted oost-NRA.

The plan may permit distribution if the employee is still working beyond NRA. Must be included in the plan document.

2015 instructions for Form 1099R: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1099r.pdf See the last paragraph on page 12.

is this a qualified plan? governmental plan?

To the original poster, note the important difference between a plan merger and a plan termination. In the former case, (generally) employee options do not arise; the word "transfer" is often used in this case, although it may not be the best choice of terminology. Could that be the situation you have?

Pardon my bluntness, but this is silly. In the context of the 5500, the various categories are pretty simple: "active" means "actively employed", and "separated" means "not actively employed". Please don't seek complexity when it's not needed.