Mike Preston

I'm unfamiliar with the case you cite, because a majority of my familiarity with DRO rules is based on California law. In California, pursuant to the Brown decision (which I guess is what the decision you cite is similar to), your spouse would get an increase based on your increase. They would be entitled to 50% of the amount that is based on the fraction of your benefit accorded to the community. If you were in the plan a total of 30 years and you were married for 20 of them, then 2/3 of your benefit would be community and 50% of that, or 1/3 of the total would be your ex-spouse's interest. That would mean your ex-spouse would get 1/3 of the total, which is $166,667.

Hardships aren't required, so your document can provide its own rules as to how hardships are implemented. Just follow your document terms.

This is all informal, but it has helped me in the past, so I'll share it now. The IRS is concerned that the participants have the appropriate notice so that, if the participants wish, they can make comments within the applicable periods. This means that if one is up against a deadline of some sort (like filing with the IRS within a certain period of time pursuant to some outside obligation with the plan sponsor) it is possible to issue the notice and submit before the 10 days has elapsed. The IRS form asks for the date that the notices were provided and the IRS (and the DOL) use that information for purposes of determining whether comments received by the participants are timely. The information in the notice (such as the deadlines for making comments) is ignored by the IRS/DOL and the real dates are substituted. I know the question posted was about the other end of the deadline spectrum (that is, having the 24 day period expire) and certainly the right thing to do is to re-issue. But once re-issued, it is not necessary that one hold the IRS submission to ensure it is no less than 10 days from notice to submission. Just disclose the actual date of the notice to the IRS and the IRS will then take an "early" submission and automatically extend the dates for receipt of comments accordingly.

See 410(b)(6)©. It gives you a transition period as long as the provisions of the plan don't change. Basically, AAA continues on as it has until the end of the year following the year during which AAA became a part of BBB. After the end of the transition period, pretend you are taking over a plan that has always been sponsored by a subsidiary (AAA) of another company (BBB) and proceed accordingly. Note that the 410(b)(6)© exception does not extend to anything other than 410(b). Hence, issues that are resolved with direct reference to 401(a)(4) may need to be dealt with before the end of the transition period.

For some reason, people are ignoring Belgarath's comment. In a db plan sponsored by a partnership, the individual partners are allocated a share of the entire plan cost by the partnership agreement. It has nothing to do with what each participant's accrual might be. Unless the partnership agreement has a clause in it that ties it back in some way. This is not for those with weak constitutions. Anything else just doesn't work, as far as the IRS is concerned, and is subject to being reversed upon audit. A partership DB plan, if not handled properly, is an IED.

I wouldn't go along with it even if the investment company would. It was a contribution to a SEP, which means it now resides in an IRA. Search BenefitsLink for how to handle making the contribution essentially go away. Basically, I think the procedure is to treat it as compensation and a voluntary contribution to an IRA. To the extent it exceeds the otherwise applicable limits, it must be withdrawn, with interest by 4/1 of the calendar year following deposit.

No one knows, yet. My guess is that an amendment will be required if you don't want to pay the better of the two rates.

No, it is not true. How can you merge retroactively?

*IF* the plan sponsor has a general tested plan, then it is almost imperative to restructure for 410(b) purposes.

Partner's kids work at the firm?

I agree it is a document provision.

I'm not sure that the receipt of the hypothetical allocation is the trigger for determining whether or not a year of participation for 415(b) has been credited. Isn't this a required definition of the plan document? Usually it is based on hours of service (1000 in most plans, I think). But, if it is based on receipt of a hypothetical allocation then that would be ok, if the IRS approved the language.

OK, I'll bite. What is the abbreviated test?

I don't.

Sometimes there are folks participating in one but not the other.

I guess there are two ways to look at this. 1) You should be entitled to get information from the plan sponsor so that you can make informed decisions. Not from Fidelity (unless your ex works for Fidelity), but from the plan itself. 2) I think it is possible that the person you were speaking with at Fidelity is confused about the nature of the benefit. It sounds like they might be confusing the word "fee" for "benefit". That is, if your benefit is $200/month, they might think that it is a reduction to your ex's benefit of $200/month and, to them, that is a "charge." Of course, the amount of that "charge" can't be known until the QDRO is presented to them. In general, it is not normal practice to have your ex's benefit reduced by both your benefit and a separate "fee" or "charge", although I guess it is possible.

Lori, there is a competitor named FREE5500.com. It is as free as freeerisa.com. Try it, as I think their website is not down.

Yes.

Everybody in the business knows that this arrangement is stupid. Yet, it pops up all the time. Amazing.

Well, let's get technical for a moment. I agree that a resolution probably won't work. But, if the resolution itself has enough meat in it so that a participant's benefit entitlement can be established, then it would suffice. For example, if the resolution was of the form that "the attached plan shall be adopted....." and then the actual adoption of the plan was somehow delayed, I'd fight that fight.

Darn, I take an hour break and I miss it!

I think there are a couple sections on the R you can avoid, too.

Tom, are you saying that the IRS has put it in writing somewhere that we have to use pre-retirement mortality when determining the 417(e) lump sum under PPA, effective 1/1/08, even if the actuarial equivalence in the document doesn't provide for pre-retirement mortality? If yes, are they saying that this is what should have been done pre-PPA? There sure aren't many people who have done it that way pre-PPA.

What Andy said.

Which, in case it isn't clear from Austin's response, no to your first question, yes to your second.