david rigby

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.

Is there a question?

Is someone writing a term paper? A treatise? A court brief? Verbs such as "describe" and (especially) "provide" seem very strong. What's in it for us? What else is going on? What is the context for this "request"?

"initialing"? Never ask for initials if you can ask for a signature. And a date.

Drop the agent?

Does the plan still exist? If not, what is the anticipated handling of any collected amounts? How much was the overpayment? What is the cause of the overpayment? Did the annuity provide make the overpayment (and why)?

To rephrase something stated by @Lou S. and @Peter Gulia, check the plan document; many will contain language that automatically terminates a plan when/if the plan sponsor is bankrupt/liquidated/etc.

Sure, but some of those employers began as single-life entities and exempt from much of ERISA. Those employers had no interest in hiring a professional PA. In such cases, the "flaw" is not re-evaluating the plan's administrative policies/procedures when the employer (and the plan) grew larger.

As I recall, there used to be access to some rate(s) on the SOA website (or maybe it was the Academy website). But no longer.

Exactly. To @penpen, just in case you are not aware, your reference is probably to a draft DRO. Since it becomes a QDRO only when the plan administrator approves it, it's OK (even recommended) to start with a draft. AS @QDROphile implies, the "twice" could imply that the drafting party(ies) are not familiar with the procedures and/or not sufficiently familiar with QDROs. But, ultimately the goal is to get it right, so don't give up and get the third draft completed!

You can find some prior discussion threads on this point, using the search feature above. Perhaps use a search word of "7503".

I would not use any such template. I would not use any comment instructing recipients to ignore part of the statement.

I agree with Effen. Such statements should NEVER show a LS value; as stated, this can fluctuate significantly; if the plan has no LS option, it would be foolish to state or imply any LS amount. Rather, the statement should show the AB, possibly including the years of credited service. If the projected ben is shown, assume zero percent salary increase for future years. Either should probably include a short statement identifying the concept of a life annuity, and (maybe) describing the optional forms available. Any "total rewards statement" should include a generic reference to the Summary Plan Description(s). Also, this is a great opportunity to remind participants about reviewing/updating any beneficiary elections.

If this proposal constitutes a form of payment that is not in the plan, the PA will refuse to qualify the DRO. If this is "horse trading", where the participant wants to pay less to the AP, the PA will be indifferent to what label is attached by the participant and AP.

Great comments. To expand on Peter's comments, consider an example where there is a natural disaster (eg, tornado, hurricane) that interferes with the employer's normal business operations. Governing agencies (IRS, DOL, PBGC) have a long history of providing "disaster relief". One of the foundations of that relief is phrases such as the underlined one above. Thus, the safe harbor described above is not the only method of compliance.