david rigby

Perhaps I'm just a cynic, but this has a bad smell to it. 1. Are you absolutely sure the HCE is no longer a Key? 2, Why would a current participant want to be excluded? Could the HCE be an owner who misunderstands the consequences of such exclusion? (Hey, I've learned to be skeptical, that there are often important facts not yet disclosed.)

Settlor cost?

Would it help if (all of the) fees went directly to the plan, and then you invoice the plan (or plan sponsor)?

... and "marginal" means the rate at which the last dollar is taxed. In a progressive tax system, this is the highest rate at which any portion of the person's income is subject to taxation.

If "ex" means "alternate payee", why wouldn't the "ex's attorney" ask his/her client for documentation of what the ex actually did?

Sounds like an extra contribution. Would the plan need amendment? or require a different allocation basis?

If the Braves aren't playing, baseball season is over.

Data as of 30-SEP-14 (Tuesday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.05 4.05 Aa 4.13 4.16 4.15 A 4.20 4.34 4.27 Baa 4.78 4.84 4.81 Avg 4.37 4.35 4.36 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.48 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.09 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.96

Agree with response from My2Cents. Even if the sister is the beneficiary, there may be a "disclaimer" that she could execute in your favor. (I'm not an attorney, so this is not legal advice.)

Responses to this question are posted in this duplicate post. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/56269-death-of-alternative-payee-before-designating-beneficiary/#.VCv82U10yUk

Litigation to follow. Maybe.

The administrator is changing the QDRO?

Have you considered paying the accrued benefit (apparently, at or near the 415 limit) as an annuity benefit? As pointed out, the LS can go down between 62 and 65, so why not just take the annuity now, and take a lump sum later?

Caution. If the 2012 date was a typo, what was on the 2011 filing? If 2011 filing had 01/01/2011, then doing an amended filing might be easy and advisable. If not, then you are faced with a different problem (or two). Consider asking this question of the IRS thru retirementplanquestions@irs.gov?

Don't be too casual about the merger process. A notice under 204(h) is not the only issue. Have you covered the money purchase plan provisions that cannot be eliminated?

Probably the answer is Yes (although the original post may not have provided enough information). Read 204(h) carefully, and don't overlook 204(h)(9).

Possibly, but not necessarily. Again, consider very carefully how this is the plan's concern. While it might be generous of the plan to help fix the situation, many of us have gotten in deep do-do (that's a technical term) by trying to help when it's none of our business. BTW, assuming the plan could and did help to resolve this, there may be an administrative cost for the plan; if the other participants share in that expense, might that be a fiduciary violation?

Yep. However, it seems your QDRO procedures could allow for common sense. For example, you might raise a red flag if the employee had been hired one day prior to the reference date in the draft QDRO.

QDROphile has captured my thoughts very eloquently. I like his emphasis: if the plan did nothing wrong, then the plan should stay out of it. Of course, it's reasonable for the plan to review that question of "wrong", but that is an internal review, not involving the P or the AP.

Today only, if you go to a Krispy Kreme store, and talk like a pirate, you get a free doughnut. If you also dress like a pirate, (I think) you get a dozen.

http://www.krispykreme.com/menu/doughnuts/PirateDoughnut

There have been a couple of discussion threads (in the QDRO message board) about fraudulent orders, usually sent by the AP or the AP's legal counsel directly to someone who is not the employer. Don't assume they are idiots or jerks. It's possible that some vendors are being very cautious.

Just speculation: perhaps this accrual pattern was first created at a time when the plan (either thru plan definition or thru administration) used pay rate (i.e., annualized) in its calculation of average pay, rather than one of the many versions of actual pay. Even if this is not a violation of the accrual rules (and we don't have enough information to know), it would be simplest to recognize Effen's advice: "give them what they want", especially since it's pretty difficult to justify this definition to plan participants. For the question of retroactive application, you may want to be aggressive on this: change the plan and make it clear that is prospective. But be prepared to have the IRS insist it be retroactive to some date (such as the most recent restatement date). If the original poster does not have an ERISA attorney involved, I can recommend several.

Where we presume the other employee is not the spouse.

Don't forget to read 410©(2) and 411(e)(2).