david rigby

Agree, but watch out for existing QDRO's that have generic language requiring any additional benefit/feature to be offered to the AP. It may not be common, but it does exist.

This also depends on the anticipated cash flow. Don't assume it will be level every year. If sponsor thinks corporate cash flow in year 9 or 10 (for example) might be much lower (or higher) than in year 3, then plan for it, especially as Effen has suggested. Ok, this might sound simple or intuitive, but it's overlooked. Just ask the question.

Good comments above. Note that the word "retired" can have multiple meanings. In a qualified plan, it usually means separation from service after any date at which benefit commencement is permitted, and may also mean that the benefit has actually commenced. However, it may have other connotations under HR policies.

Agreed, but that will not stop the accountant for asking for a "SSAE16 report", exactly like many previously requested the actuary's "SAS70 report". I'm just curious about the extent of such requests, and how other actuaries have responded.

Any actuaries had inquiries from auditors w/r/t SSAE 16?

Does this help? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/55523-beneficiary-is-minor-child/

As of today, Carol's chart includes this footnote: 2015 IRS limits are projected, courtesy of Tom Poje of DCS Retirement Group. 2015 Social Security wage base is projected, courtesy of Financial Ducks. Projections not yet available are shown as “N/A.”

Have you checked the plan provisions?

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?