david rigby

Seems like pretty good comments (not legal advice 😄) from @Peter Gulia. Another course of action might be to ask the accounting firm directly. At the risk of sounding like a broken record (you youngsters can look up what that means), in addition to reading the statute, you may find some useful information by searching these Message Boards for prior discussions. I suggest a search term of "4980" or "replacement".

Non-lawyer opinion follows: Since the original question said nothing about a spouse, it appears we are to assume "not married" and "no QDRO". Just trying to be thorough. This might be because the deceased has debts greater than assets, although that is (probably) not a concern of the Plan. I've encountered a few cases where the death benefit went to an estate; it seems likely (to me) that the Plan Administrator's best position is to follow the plan definitions precisely. But it should open the discussion as to whether the plan can be amended for more flexibility, going forward. For example, many plans use a definition that includes (after spouse), the deceased's lineal descendants and ascendants, followed by "the estate"; is there a problem of amending the definition to include siblings?

Is there any substantive difference between this and the information on Form 8955-SSA? Would the DOL (and plan sponsors) be better served by having the IRS provide the Form information to the DOL at the same time as providing it to the SSA? (OK, maybe that requires a statutory change, but you get my point.)

IMHO, BenefitsLink has changed, for the better, the way benefits professionals do their jobs. Attaboy Dave!

It's possible the portion that could be payable to a surviving spouse is the same (or close) to the amount you are already receiving. You need to carefully focus on the surviving sp. language in the QDRO.

I think there is also a requirement to focus on the vested interest. It is possible that the person is not vested yet, or maybe not next year. Have I overlooked something?

My recollection is that there is NO reg corresponding IRC 4980. It is always a good idea to re-read the text of the statute. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title26-section4980&num=0&edition=prelim

In North Carolina, probation officers are employed by the Department of Adult Correction. They are covered by the state retirement plan. It will be important to get an attorney familiar with the plan, as well as to determine if suicide has any bearing on what benefit(s) are (or are not) payable.

This is an ERISA provision, which no ERISA plan is required to include (i.e., the plan could use any time period less than 12 months). This "12-month rule" may or may not be included in a government-based plan, and state law could also be relevant.

Is it just me? is this advice from attorney surprising? Crazy?

Lots to unpack here, with some vagueness that needs careful probing, which probably should not be done in this public forum. Such probing should be done by your attorney, NOT discussing with the ex-wife. (For example, it's unusual, but not impossible, to have "alimony" as part of a QDRO, so the attorney will get clarity on terminology.) If the attorney is not intimately familiar with QDROs, keep looking.

What is an "old QDRO"? A DRO becomes a QDRO only when approved by the plan administrator. Has the PA done all the due diligence to look for a DRO (or QDRO) in one of their old files? If the AP could have submitted a DRO but did not do so, is it the job of the PA to point out that omission by reviewing the divorce decree (and/or the property settlement)?

In over 40 years of plan review, I've never seen any plan sponsor that tracked payroll data by month. If this sponsor cannot do so (easily!) then I suggest you give strong consideration to using annual comp.

Probably not. However, if you have safety issues that cause you to avoid disclosing your physical address, that piece of information can be omitted from a QDRO, as long as the Plan has whatever address information it needs. By the way, the title to your post includes "Defined Benefit Plan" but your statement says, "401k Plan". Those mean different things. If the Ex has multiple plans (possibly multiple employers), a QDRO can be used to divide any/all of them. (That is, don't assume there is only one plan.) Your attorney will tell you whether you need more than one QDRO to accomplish this.

You might need two lawyers, if multiple states are involved.

IRC 412(a)(1) reads as, "In general. A plan to which this section applies shall satisfy the minimum funding standard applicable to the plan for any plan year." IRC 412(e) is titled "Plans to which section applies", and then paragraph "(2) Exceptions", and then "(D) any church plan (within the meaning of section 414(e)) with respect to which the election provided by section 410(d) has not been made," and then flush language "No plan described in subparagraph (C), (D), or (F) shall be treated as a qualified plan for purposes of section 401(a) unless such plan meets the requirements of section 401(a)(7) as in effect on September 1, 1974." Take note that no member of Congress wants to be in the position of regulating any church plan.

Is it just me? Is there something else going on? Has there been any doubt about the ongoing reporting and disclosure requirements of a frozen plan?

Seems like the first question is whether the $2.85MM was a distribution from the plan. If so, it's taxable income.

State withholding rules may differ. Also, note that it is NOT 20%, as that percent withholding applies to payments that could be rolled over to an IRA. The RMD is not rollable, thus the 10% withholding applies unless another percent is chosen.

Pre-nup is not relevant. The Plan must follow its own rules for distribution and who is defined to be the beneficiary. Hint: likely, the plan defines beneficiary as "spouse".

BTW, if you have any doubts about the current level of actuarial advice, I know some actuaries who have consulted on similar situations.

Be very clear as to who/what any attorney is representing?

1. File an amended form? 2. On next year's filing, use Line 4 to "change" the plan name?

Great questions. The follow-up question(s) would be something like, "has the recordkeeper made itself a fiduciary?"

@Effen is correct about referring to plan provisions. Never discretionary. You can also search this forum for some prior discussion threads. Use a search word like "suspend" or "suspension" or "rehire". In the opinion of some (especially me), the proper way to think about the question should also include the plan status of "frozen" or "not frozen". The plan provisions (suspend or not) should not be contrary to HR policy (loosely described as "do we want to rehire this person"); if the current provision(s) do not align with the preferred HR policy, then you should hire @Effen to give you some experienced actuarial advice.