david rigby

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).

From IRC 4980(d):

If it's a lump sum of the entire participant benefit, is there a need to prorate anything? The basis is the basis. Or perhaps I misread the question?

What provisions in the statute and regs apply? IRC 3121(v)(2) implies that waiting until payment date is not valid, unless there is some "substantial risk of forfeiture". Also see reg 1.3121(v)(2)-1(e). See IRC 83© and regulation 1.83-3© to determine if that terminology applies in your case (your orginal post implies it does not). Note that 3121(v) does not offer an option of "wait until retirement".

Should?

Yikes! This seems like an HR function to me. Most TPAs don't want to be part of the HR relationship.

any help from prior discussions? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/49774-distribution-to-minor-beneficiary-and-fiduciary-obligation-to-minor/ http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/51842-deceased-participant-questions/

IMHO, if accrued items (whether BOY or EOY) are included, then they will be included with an improper time-weighting. I believe that a plain reading of the statute supports this position and I see no reason to be concerned that the cash basis assets do not equal the valuation assets.

Note that IRC 430(f)(8) includes the phrase, "...in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary..." The IRS has stated (informally) their opinion that no regulations are needed or desired. That position is very sensible. Yes, a cash basis calculation of ROR is the best approach here.

No. Don't forget that HCE includes someone who is a "5% owner" anytime during the year or preceding year.

Interestingly, less than 50% of the plans I see use the "one-year rule".

I'm with Andy in preferring to "keep is simple". However, don't forget to determine whether the plan provisions concern: - the "one-year rule" in IRC 401(a)(11)(D), - IRS Reg. 1.401(a)-Q&A27 (not relevant to the "election package" in the original post, but relevant at time of distribution).

Sorry Peter. You are missing the humor. Andy is pointing out the the annual funding notice (supposedly an "upgrade" required by PPA) provides more (raw) information than the SAR it replaced, but less useful information.