david rigby

If your question is whether to include them in the plan's definition of comp, it might be helpful to examine your relationship to the plan. If you are the TPA, do you have any authority to make a plan interpretation? Do you know about any potential examples of how this question was addressed in the past (ie, precedent)? In general, before making any plan interpretation, it's a good idea to identify who has the authority to do so.

Altough it was on the form SSA, that does not eliminate the possibility that the benefit was paid out (correctly) in a later year.

If there was real theft, make sure there are real police involved. One prior discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/37085-employee-theft/

Several prior discussion threads on this topic. Try search terms such as "embezzle", "theft", etc.

If you want to be any good at it, this statement is false.

Would it be simpler to produce the document(s) that show "timely adoption" of the amendment?

This raises the purely administrative question: what documentation does the plan sponsor require at the time a participant and/or beneficiary applies for a benefit? eg, in the case of a benefit paid to a surviving spouse, a marriage license?

Data as of 30-May-14 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.16 4.16 Aa 4.11 4.19 4.15 A 4.19 4.29 4.24 Baa 4.62 4.77 4.70 Avg 4.31 4.35 4.33

...but you may want to phrase it a bit less confrontational.

Or..... might the husband/wife own some vacation property?? If so, many prior discussions about prohibited transaction.

Let's be clear on something: when you say "Bank", it appears you are referring to the sponsoring employer. Is that correct? (Sometimes "bank" is used in reference to a plan trustee. If the sponsoring employer is/was a bank, it may be worthwhile to say "employer" or "sponsor" or something similar, avoiding confusion/implication about a trustee.) If this is/was a formal SERP, there should be a written plan document. That seems like a good place to start. Since the original poster has not provided many details, I'll assume nothing. Here are a few questions that are useful before anyone here can offer any reasonable comments: Is this a defined benefit SERP? Is the participant (you?) still an employee? Is there dispute about the accrued benefit (if a DB-type SERP) or the account balance (if a DC-type SERP). Is there a vesting provision that might affect the amount of the benefit? is there a plan provision defining the lump sum calculation? (Many other potential questions.)

so what? Does everything have to be split 50/50 in a divorce? Of course not.

Huh? Are you suggesting that you offer to let her be the beneficiary on some (or all) of your life insurance? Is this in exchange for something else? You may be focused too much on "leave behind money for my family", such that you give up a (not trivial) life insurance benefit, which is meant for your family.

To clarify, QPSA refers to a death benefit, paid to a surviving spouse if you die before retirement. Some plans will have a QPSA (or other pre-retirement death benefit) payable to a non-spouse. In your case, it appears the QDRO has (probably correctly, as Effen stated above) specifed your ex-wife as the "surviving spouse" for a portion of your pension benefit (ie, the pre-divorce portion). BTW, be sure you check with your employer to correctly identify the beneficiary(ies) for any remaining benefit you have. For example, your ex-wife was probably listed as your beneficiary in your 401(k) plan, but you should change it now that she has been paid her portion under the QDRO. Verify this for everything that could need a beneficiary designation (IRA, benefit from prior employement, life insurance, etc.) Your divorce will not automatically change any of it.

Kinda like parenting, huh?

Experience with being screwed? Experience with SERP? Experience with present value?

Maybe. That's why you should have an attorney. By the way, if the attorney is not well-versed in QDRO's, keep looking for one who is.

I'm not comfortable with that generalization.

"rolled" might be different from "transferred". the former implies a distribution.

Just don't assume that "family member" = HCE.

Anyone have any insight and/or speculation about when/how the IRS will adopt the new mortality table(s)? (Yes, I'm familiar with the discussion at the 2014 EA meeting.) Here is mine: the PPA mandate is to upate the tables "at least every 10 years". If the current table is extended one more year (thru 2016), and then a new basis is adopted for 2017, the IRS will get two benefits: - they beat their mandate by one year, and - they give the software vendors more time to update for 2D projedtions scales. Also, there is no way the IRS will recognize (ie, in the approved tables) the measured differences in "collar". Go.

Yikes. There is implication in post #5 that the plan did this because the judge said so. Extremely important: no QDRO (and no judge) can tell the plan to pay something that is not permitted by the plan. But perhaps I misunderstand your phrasing. (By the way, discussion about the children is irrelevant, and a distraction.)

Just for clarification: it appears (to me, at least) that the original question and all responses assume the benefit payment(s) have not yet commenced.

Get what fixed? I agree with previous comment: extremely unusual for a plan to permit changing a benefit once it has begun. However, it appears this plan allows it (although I can't imagine why the ex-wife would agree to it). The method proposed (recalculate back to original payment date) is not the only valid method, but it appears to be the method defined in the plan. (No one reading this message board will have enough information to know the exact plan language.) It would not hurt if you asked the sponsoring company if the plan permits other method(s) that do not involve retroactive change (but don't hold your breath). BTW, as I read your comments, it appears you don't have a choice: the QDRO has been done and accepted. What a pity someone did not consider this in advance.

Likely, taxpayers subsidy of administration cost(s).