My 2 cents

If a plan that continues to provide for "RMDs" for non-owners over 70 1/2 who remain in employment (assuming that is the situation) does not issue those payments, would that failure (although it could be a failure to follow plan provisions issue) result in there being missed RMDS subject to excise taxes? The law pretty clearly does not require that they be made or else. So I would not think that the participants would have to suffer any penalties. I would not expect the rules to be more stringent for a governmental plan than for a corporate plan. I don't wish to cast aspersions on the EGTRRA restatement, but that requirement (required beginning date = 4/1 after year of age 70 1/2 even for active non-owner employees) went away a very long time ago, not just due to the passage of EGTRRA. SBJPA, effective c.1997? GUST restatements should have provided that non-owners would not have to receive RMDs until after the later of retirement or age 70 1/2. What else might be wrong with the EGTRRA restatement?

If the participant's benefit was rolled over into an IRA, that IRA must deal with minimum distributions whether or not the participant has continued in employment. So if the person was over age 70 1/2, they will quickly have to deal with taking RMDs from the IRA even if the initial rollover need not be reduced by a pension plan RMD. If the plan has terminated, the participant's benefits must be distributed, so there is no such thing as a terminated plan retaining (on more than a temporary basis) a participant's benefits. The RMD rules for the retirement plan thus cease to matter in a fairly short amount of time.

For what it's worth, this was just copied from the Form 501 instructions on the PBGC website: The following documents must be attached to the Form 501: For individuals for whom annuities were purchased (this includes non-missing and missing participants): a copy of the annuity contract(s), certificates, and/or written notices to the participants, identifying contact information for the annuity provider, group contract numbers for that annuity provider and a list of participants entitled to annuities from that annuity provider For individuals who received a lump sum distribution, a copy of the cancelled check or bank statement with the individual’s name and distribution amount. For each missing participant whose designated benefit was transferred to PBGC, a separate Attachment B must be attached to the Schedule MP Does it matter why the PBGC wants all of this information? The Form 501 instructions make it clear enough that they do. As noted above, perhaps it is to facilitate any audit the PBGC may conduct.

So how would they distinguish the person being hired to do repairs from the other people they hire? Amend the plan to exclude people employed to perform just the kind of repairs that they are hiring this person for? I suppose they could engage the person to perform services as an independent contractor. I hear that there are for-profit companies that do that sort of thing.

Times having really changed, you might not want to try getting your neighbor's 8-year old kid to do that. At best (and let us not dwell too closely on what the worst would be), people would then be likely to pull their kids inside (assuming that they let their kids go outside in the first place) if they saw that you were passing by. Remember, these days they suspend kids from school who point a finger at someone and say "bang". And see what happens if you sternly say "be quiet!" to someone else's noisy child in a store. I'm still shaking my head about an article I saw last week that involved a child's parents suing their child's private school because the school did nothing when told that the child was allergic to the school's WiFi signal.

This is what the instructions say for line 3b: "If your distribution deadline is the IRS determination letter distribution deadline described in section II.H.1, enter the date of receipt of the IRS determination letter with respect to the plan’s tax-qualification status upon termination." I am not sure what they like to see for items that are not applicable, but in your case this item does not appear relevant since you are not using the IRS letter as a reason for not meeting the normal PBGC deadline. If it will take N/A, you might want to put that in (or PENDING or leave it blank). You might even call the PBGC to see what they suggest.

No, I think what it means is that if the participant elects a lump sum now for 50% and the remainder as an immediate lifetime annuity such as a straight life annuity or the plan's QJSA, then when the plan stops being restricted, the already-elected form sticks. If the plan allows a 50% lump sum with the rest deferred, you would have whatever options the plan would then permit when it comes out of restriction under Section 436. It is even possible that the plan would not permit a half-now, half-later annuity election. They are permitted under the regulations but I don't think they are required. If someone elects an unrestricted annuity form for the entire benefit, then no ASD when the restrictions are lifted means that they don't get to switch then to a lump sum. The original election is irrevocable. Allowing participants to bide their time with a non-accelerated form and then switch to an accelerated form is permitted but not required, and this plan does not offer such a choice.

Under DOL or IRS rules, are any special procedures required when the participant or AP is incarcerated? Or is it OK to just proceed normally ignoring that fact?

Agree in particular with "What does the plan say?" Many plans call for an offset instead of cancellation of service if a prior lump sum is not paid back. If a plan specifies what has to be done to repay a lump sum, if the participant does make the repayment accordingly, then it would always be as though the original lump sum had never been paid (i.e., no offset, no loss of service).

Agreed. I would expect that if the accrued benefit cashed out n years ago was a deferred benefit payable as a single life annuity of $120 per month starting at age 65, however arrived at, and the plan's normal annuity form is still a single life annuity payable starting at age 65, $120's your offset. How could it not be?

The plan probably still refers to "current liability". Which, of course, is probably no longer otherwise relevant. It is my understanding of the IRS position that the basis is to be reasonable and consistently applied (at least within a given plan year). HATFA rates are probably fine. PPA rates are probably fine. Consistent, ideally based on a documented policy. If it is specified in the plan document or a plan amendment, be sure to follow it! Probably unnecessary to go so far as to base the determination on lump sum factors. And (assuming that the applicable AFTAP in effect on the date of distribution, deemed or certified, prior to the distribution, was at least 80%) it is always possible to pay the distribution if adequate security is established!

I may be showing my ignorance, but in looking at the first hypothetical in the original post, I am practically certain that substantial earnings prior to plan entry could not possibly interfere with making deferrals after plan entry until at least the post-entry earnings themselves reach 401(a)(17). The earnings on which deferrals are being made must be limited by 401(a)(17), but the limit would only apply with respect to the earnings on which deferrals are being made. Ditto for the second hypothetical, with its large bonus on which no deferrals were being made.. If the plan allows (for example) deferrals of up to 10% of earnings, and the participant elects to defer 8%, the participant's deferral for the year can be no greater than 8% of the 401(a)(17) limit. That is how 401(a)(17) works. It is only if one is deferring from the first dollar that 401(a)(17) has the effect of saying "stop!" as the attorney seems to be saying.

Shouldn't the ex-spouse be the one worrying about this? If the plan administrator won't accept a copy of the divorce decree (has that been tried?) as a QDRO, wouldn't the plan have to pay each month's benefit solely to the original poster? Seems to me that it would be in the ex-spouse's interest to do what is needed to effectuate the relevant part of the participant's benefit. Is there a current spouse? That would make it even more critical for the ex-spouse to make sure that everything is in order.

If people over age 70 1/2 are required by the plan to be treated differently from people not over age 70 1/2, where the difference is not mandated by law, might that be a violation of the age discrimination laws? In other words, I don't have a cite either, but the back of my mind says if you are not required to push those people out, don't do it.

1. The plan can certainly permit anyone still employed after Normal Retirement Age (assuming the plan is using a defensible NRA) to elect to commence benefits at will. PPA allows the plan to permit commencement while employed at any time after attainment of age 62, but it is much more common for plans to only permit in-service benefit commencements on or after NRA (at least in my experience, although many do not allow commencement at all until separation from service). 2. If the participant is still employed and not a 5% owner, the required beginning date will not occur until after separation from service, and the plan should not be providing otherwise.

My apologies if I am not getting your point or correctly understanding the cite, but that Q&A appears to deal with benefits relative to the participant's required beginning date. I am not seeing anything there implying that there is a problem with the participant starting benefits on his or her portion of the benefit at (for example) age 58 and the alternate payee with a separate interest beginning benefits 2 years later at his or her age 62. Let us consider this based on the assumption that neither the participant nor the alternate payee is interested in deferring commencement until a required beginning date, but the alternate payee wants to wait a year or two after the participant's payments start before starting his or her portion. Is there a problem with that, if supported by the wording of the QDRO and the provisions of the plan?

Distinct from the issue of the applicability of RMD rules to the alternate payee's benefits, is it not really the case that if the QDRO identifies the alternate payee's benefits as a "separate interest", then those benefits are owned exclusively by the alternate payee, as though they never were part of the participant's benefit? If the plan says that they must commence no later (or no earlier) than the participant's benefits, then you would have to follow the plan provisions. But "separate interest" involves a legal status that makes the benefits assigned to the alternate payee his or hers rather than remaining part of the participant's benefits. Or at least that is how I thought it worked.

I've never seen the inside of an Edsel, but I'm pretty sure they were Fords.

If neither the participant nor the alternate payee are near age 70 1/2, why would it be an RMD issue?

If they started out below 100, their first year filing would have been either a 5500-SF or a 5500 with a Schedule I. They can stay that way forever if they never get to 120. If they do bump up over 120, however, it is time for a Schedule H and an accountant's opinion. It will stay that way until they get down to below 100. As noted, if between 80 and 120, they may file the same as last year if they want. Otherwise their filing category breaks at 100.

Wow - I can't remember one of those cones big enough to hold a quart! I can only think of the small ones that can a small amount of water or just enough coffee for two spoons of sugar. Here's a couple of items that will never again be what they once were: An encyclopedia taking up an entire shelf and the new year's yellow pages. Can't bring myself to put dictionaries there - the OED is more of a wonder of the world that a mere reference book. Here's a helpful hint: Never agree to play scrabble using the OED! I was surprised to realize how many things on the list are still out there, if perhaps a bit retro. Like LPs and bank teller windows. And drive-thru restaurants. Add to the list movie theaters showing just one movie at a time. The unethical out there can probably find a way to create their own "double feature" at a multiplex! I still get my news from the daily newspaper! I just happen to read most of it the day before, when it's posted on their web site! As for returnable bottles - in some places they require deposits on more bottles than before (think plastic water bottles).

Two years from now, nobody will be able to make any sense of this joke (assuming that all credit card transactions not performed using a phone app will be made using a chip on the card and not a magnetic strip). Someone should write a book full of funny jokes that only older people will get (things like jokes about LPs and phone booths).

My read was that they are looking to suspend payments to the AP pending the return of forms signed by the AP. What could it have to do with the participant? The participant's entitlement, having been already reduced by the QDRO, should be entirely unencumbered, shouldn't it?

As a general rule (as I understand it), just as we all have shadows, we all have estates (the practical significance of each being a matter of facts and circumstances). Be assured that if the death benefit were a lump sum payment of $50,000, a way would be found by the participant's survivors to establish an estate and to distribute its contents!

According to earlier posts, the check was delivered 30 years ago but the participant had died. The check was just rediscovered by the participant's son.