AndyH

Another question - does the plan clearly state that pre-participation service isn't credited for benefit accrual purposes?

As usual, I agree with Belgarath's comments. My (old) version of The ERISA Outline Book agrees that the guidance is not especially clear, but the EOB does suggest that at least a partial year of credit is appropriate, if not a full year, in such a circumstance. I would not rely on the ftwilliam opinion alone.

Is there a letter?

I am merely trying to point out 1.401(a)(26)(2)(d)(1)(iii) (iii) Defined benefit plans with other arrangements (A) In general. A defined benefit plan is treated as comprising separate plans if, under the facts and circumstances, there is an arrangement (either under or outside the plan) that has the effect of providing any employee with a greater interest in a portion of the assets of a plan in a way that has the effect of creating separate accounts.

Separate asset pools are separate plans for purposes of 401(a)(26).

Well it would certainly make sense, but I haven't seen this in print anywhere. Thanks Lou.

Does an IRA to Roth IRA conversion start the 5 year clock? Assume that a participant has a Roth 401(k) account and is always ineligible to contribute to a Roth IRA. As I understand it, if the participant rolled over the Roth k to a Roth IRA, the 5 year clock starts anew. If such participant had done a conversion of a regular IRA into a Roth IRA 5 years earlier, would the 5 year rule be satisfied immediately upon the rollover from of the Roth K to the Roth IRA?

To the poster, the link that you cited above says a TIN should be obtained in order to properly report certain things. If a plan needs to report those things, and wants to do it properly, then it should obtain a TIN per the IRS. Why is complicated and in need of further "authority"?

Both? Or Both with increases on the additional accruals? This seems to be an issue that has no clear answer. At least not an answer that people agree on.

oh, I could read better in 1998 or 1988. It is a good outline though.

Tom, you're either a packrat or you invented the scanner in 1988. I think I used a 4K computer in 1988.

1. For Nondiscrimination testing, a lump sum is not supposed to be reflected in testing, the QJSA is. Part of the reason is that the QJSA is supposed to be the most valuable benefit. But if you have a 3% (fixed) lump sum factor and a 7% (fixed) actuarial equivalence factor, I think you'd have a problem with the most valuable requirement. But if both sets of factors were 5% I don't think you would have an issue. 2. Apparently the IRS' interpretation is that the surplus may not be used for a match. You could use transferred surplus for profit sharing. Not sure about QNEC but I don't know any prohibition. You should research this issue.

The short answer is no, a CB allocation is not limited to (or by) current comp. It is limited by the DB 415 limit which is not based on current comp. Actually, the allocation is not limited by 415 unless the plan so specifies, the amount that can be paid is, as I understand it.

Agree with Lou. No question IMHO.

which is why you've been composing so many pension songs lately.

3% if he is not a participant in the DB plan

Makes sense, but what exactly do you mean by "incorporates" and "dual stream calculation" in the situation where the plan does not have specific language?

David, I agree there may be no official statement that 2000-40 no longer applies to such circumstances, but I have seen unofficial ones, and I was also specifically told that by a high ranking IRS official a few years ago.

Not unless I missed some automatic approval notice. Don't think so. Apparently expected "soon" though.

I would think that's true either way. Isn't the 4/1 minimum actually for 2014?

Plans have similar death benefit provisions (mostly REA minimum), but amounts, retirement dates and ERF's for example are different. The 2 QDRO decision has been made. The QDRO details remain.

So I think I am proposing 1+3 (3 based on the participant's 50%). The Attorney that drafted QDRO is calling that "double dipping" and says only 1 or 3 (3 based on the entire benefit) may be paid. I suspect that the fixed price for the QDRO drafting is the issue. This is a simplification of a real situation in which there are actually 2 DB plans - one that the husband is in and another that the wife is in, both with similar death benefits. So it is in the best interest of both parties to have the QDROs (the second has yet to be drafted but will be a mirror) provide the best available survivor benefit option.

mbozek, I am with you except your final sentence: Designation of a secondary beneficiary to receive benefits is subject to plan rules. Most plans do not allow benefits to be paid after death of the employee or beneficiary. Please clarify. In this situation, all pre-retirement death benefits would be paid to either a spouse or a former spouse treated as a spouse.

Is 414(p)(3) violated? I guess this is the key question. I would argue no. If the QDRO provided that the AP was not treated as the spouse, and the participant remarried someone the same health and the same age, the plan would be in the same position as under my proposed language. The AP would get her 50% when she wants and the participant's new spouse would get 20%. Same cost to the plan. Is 414(p)(4)(A)(iii) violated? I don't fully understand that section, but it seems to be an exception rather than something to be violated.

Married couple divorce and one participates in DB plan. Divorce agreement specifies pension is split 50/50. Not much else specified. Plan provides for REA-only QPSA 50% death benefits. QDRO is drafted by attorney to assign 50% of accrued benefit to AP, to start whenever each wants and in any form permitted by the plan without the consent of the other (i.e. separate interest design). Assume for discussion that they are the same age and the total accrued benefit is $100/month at NRD, so each gets $50. Draft QDRO also says that if the participant dies before either pension has started, the AP is treated as the spouse and gets the QPSA (approximately $40) in lieu of the assigned retirement benefit of $50. Spouse does not like this and wants to know what alternatives are possible. Can the QDRO instead be drafted to say that each party gets their own 50%, plus is treated as the beneficiary (spouse) for purposes of the other's pre-retirement QPSA death benefit? So in that case the spouse would get their 50% plus 20% (50% x 40%) death benefit. And also each party would have the right to name their own post-retirement beneficiary if they survive to their start date, Anything wrong with this assuming written QDRO procedures don't prohibit it?