david rigby

Good advice from Peter. Make sure your counsel is the one who has the conversations with the "company". Your counsel will likely suggest you engage another actuarial firm as well.

That might depend on the application of "eviction". The aunt told him to get out; is that eviction?

Regardless of what you do about the first payment, you (someone) still has to review the DRO (perhaps that is a 2nd draft?). BTW, this situation screams about the flaws in the plan's/administrator's QDRO procedures; don't overlook the process of updating and/or enforcing them.

From the facts presented, the participant became disabled after severance of employment. If the participant's ability to take a distribution was the same before and after the incidence of disability, then it seems unlikely the participant could claim the distribution is "due to" disability.

Could be a problem with the High-25 test? If so, you can't pay the lump sum anyway.

Ditto to comments by Effen. this is pretty basic. BTW, what is meant in the original post by "receiving vendor doesn't support annuities"? Is the vendor the trustee? Is the plan sponsor letting the vendor determine what plan provisions are permitted?

Perhaps you could abandon this effort to focus on "transfer"? The instructions for Line 5b concern "...assets and/or liabilities transferred from this plan to another plan(s)..." The PBGC is not a "plan".

Can the plan issue a loan to someone unable to repay?

... but remember, the plan does not have a current auditor. Be sure to ask about the expertise of whatever auditor you may propose to engage.

The first response is the most common: What does the plan document say?

I agree with Effen's response.

Data as of 30-JUN-14 (Monday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.15 4.15 Aa 4.16 4.23 4.20 A 4.21 4.34 4.28 Baa 4.63 4.78 4.71 Avg 4.33 4.38 4.36 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.18 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.95 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.04

IMHO, no QDRO should be qualified unless it includes clear definition of what happens upon death of participant and/or AP.

Another source of information is the TH regs, 1.416-1. In particular, see Q&A T22, and Q&A M7.

Although it may not be exactly on point for your question, I think there was a (very) recent court case that addresses the distinction between a church and a church-owned organization. Try a search on the BenefitsLink home page.

Sorry to be morbid, but it might be prudent for this EE to review all beneficiary designations (not just this plan). Never assume that a Will is adequate to convey such information.

No DRO? She can't get anything from his plan, at least not directly from the plan.

The referenced Q&A is focused on whether the remaining substantially equal payments get a different treatment. But there are no such payments, because the new payment form is an entirely different situation.

Yeah, but............ according to your original post, the plan paid a lump sum equivalent, not "substantially equal periodic payments".

OK, perhaps I'm having trouble with plain English today. Where in that reg do you get the "no"?

Is "...not making a match..." different from a discretionary match of zero?

(I think the references above to Rev Proc 2000-42 should be Rev Proc 2000-40.) Gray Book Q&A 2012-5 starts with this statement, "Revenue Procedure 2000-40, which provides for automatic approval of certain funding method changes, no longer applies to single-employer pension plans covered by the PPA funding rules." Note that this is part of the question, not part of the answer. What is the origin of this statement? Gray Book Q&A 2012-14 includes (as part of the answer): "Since Rev. Proc. 2000-40 no longer applies to single-employer plans subject to PPA, funding method changes generally require explicit IRS approval (with the few limited exceptions provided by Announcement 2010-3 relating to a change in valuation software or a change in the enrolled actuary)." IMHO, this statement is not supported by the 2009 regulation or Announcement 2010-3. Perhaps I've overlooked something. Has there been any formal statement that Rev. Proc. 2000-40 (or any particular part) is not applicable? It's easy to compare PPA and reach the conclusion that certain sections cannot apply since they violate the current statute (for example, sections 3.02 thru 3.09). Does it follow automatically that 3.10 is not valid? or 3.13? Not trying to be contrary, just pointing out that explicit statements are the most useful ones.

would an international mutual fund satisfy? (it's likely simpler, and many to choose from.)

Just wondering. I'm surprised by the extremely detailed attention by a few auditors, and the lack of attention by most others. As yet, no auditor has asked the obvious question, "why is there a difference between FAS35/PPA/FAS87 liabilities?" We do not use the PPA liability or the FAS liability, but I would like to do so, but don't look forward to explaining the change to every auditor.

What does the plan say?