Mike Preston

Yes, it is very likely to pass. Will pass every year you run the test. And fail every year you don't. ?

Of course.

<<YAWN>> You have told your stories before. Look up my prior responses to your drivel. <<plonk>>

If there is no mechanism to change the settlement (which I don't really believe, but I'm humouring you) then a DRO that is prepared consistent with that settlement can't be submitted to the Plan Administrator until it becomes approvable. That will happen as soon as the P applies for benefits or, if earlier, when the AP is age 65. At that point, the plan administrator has nothing to object to. Wait for then and submit the DRO at that point. Or get the settlement changed. Only choices I see.

Some day you will wake up to the fact that what you are describing *IS* a separate interest DRO. Until then you are doomed to run in circles. Do you really not see the difference between a DRO being implemented after a P is in pay status and a DRO being implemented not only before a P is in pay status but simultaneoously acknowledging that P may elect to defer commencement for many years? BTW, P can't delay forever because 401a9 would force commencement at age 70 and 1/2.

I don't think you can. What they want is not doable. Imagine there was a similar participant who was single who wanted to start a portion of his benefit at age 65 and wanted the balance of his benefit to be deferred until some unspecified point in time. Most plans wouldn't allow that. If this plan doesn't allow it, then this plan is certainly justified in rejecting this DRO. However, you can get where you want to be by re-crafting the DRO from a shared payment DRO into a separate interest DRO, can't you? Easy peasy. You haven't shared the language in the DRO that tells the plan administrator how to define the percentage of the P's benefit that is being re-directed to the AP. That language might need some tweaking. If you weren't so hung up on using the "if, as and when" construct you would know by now (after 31 years!) that a separate interest construct frequently is used to establish just what you want in this case: P and AP go their separate ways and each can independently deal with the plan without concern as to what the other is doing.

And then you also said: "In this case the Participant does not want to retire prior to his age 65 and have the Alternate Payee start to get her share prior to his age 65. " Which of the first two statements is accurate? I have no sympathy for the Participant who wants to start receipt of a lifetime annuity and then arbitrarily decides that his ex-spouse should have to wait for hers. Tough noogies. Something makes no sense. If it is a shared payment DRO then AP gets a share of each payment made to the P. If the DRO says that AP can commence at P's age 65 even if P delays beyond 65 that is simple enough to deterine. What could be simpler?

Confirmed.

He isn't so he isn't. He's OK as long as the deductible limit in 2019 is sufficiently high.

No wink necessary. Just plain old smdh.

But it won't be level dollar.

If they had, it would have been incorrect. They could have just said, 1/7th the first year, 1/6th the second year, 1/5th the third year.... 1/2 the sixth year and 100% (1/1) the seventh year.

You are confusing 410(b) with 401(a)(4). There is no point in testing 401(a)(4) if you are failing 410(b).

Can you describe the penalty cap?

It remains to be seen who the beneficiary is.

The announcement didn't come through, or it has been deleted.

As a general rule I don't respond substantively to posts that refer to an actuary as an actuarial.

Wait.

We fully reconcile but do not disclose individual investments.

I don't think so.

I don't think I would if I had the choice.

Really? You think that covers a demographic failure?

As long as there are enough principal credit periods the exclusion of 1 of them would seem to provide enough accrual to satisfy 411.

Yes. No. Yes.

Rut roe.