Mike Preston

Link to a thread or two?

This whole thread reads like the RMD is being paid from a DC plan, not a cash balance plan. Sounds to me like the participant gets the normal form distribution as required by 1.401a9-6. Hope the election forms indicated same. Anything else is just creating a bigger problem for the future when somebody comes in that knows what they are doing.

Betcha' a buck that the OP is reading the form wrong. It probably establishes a minimum of $500 for each rollover if and only if the participant is electing two or more rollovers from a single distribution.

You should let that TPA find a different profession.

What would make you think it shouldn't?

FMSINC fails to acknowledge the fact that defined benefit plans other than those that use a cash balance format may allow for lump sums. It has already been established that additional information is needed.

I don't see the Title 1 exemption.

It was said to be an asset sale.

The answer is to grab a calculator and note that each population satisfies 410(b) so you are free to run the plans independently. You don't need the transition rule if you don't need the transition rule.

You aren't missing anything.

LOL

I know it is a sophisticated path that the California courts have chosen when dealing with pensions in divorce. Given Mr. Goldberg's lack of understanding of the purposes of simplest of actuarial calculations it is not hard for me to believe he has little familiarity with the subject. I actually hope, for his sake that he does have scant familiarity. I encourage anybody who has an interest in the subject to find one of the original textbooks, which I reference here as was done in a 2014 reported case from the Court of Appeals for New Mexico: "Murray Projector, Valuation of Retirement Benefits in Marriage Dissolutions, 50 L.A. B. Bull. 229, 233-34 (Apr. 1975)." Or any of the dozens of authoritative books published with similar names, including a Pension Answer Book with a recent publication date with a similar name. To aid in crafting Mr. Goldberg's next and no doubt pithy response I offer: https://actuarialjokes.com

I would hope that somebody other than Mr. Goldberg who is familiar with Maryland's treatment of pensions in divorce could throw some serious shade on his interpretations. It is hard for me to believe that the state I grew up in constructs their rules in such a misogynistic manner.

If aggregating solves the problem how can it hurt plan B?

I'm doubtful it doesn't pass.

"... and is paid out monthly, and does not have an ascertainable value." Not to be confused with "and does not have an actuarial value"?? Or have you just made the case that the thousands, nee millions, of cases where a valuation of some sort has been used in the context of divorce are in error?

But is one ever forced to choose? If so, what are the differences between them? I presume you are talking about different shades of correction under EPCRS.

No.

If forced to choose, 402(g).

Obviously, this is a question for your divorce lawyer, who has knowledge of how things work in your jurisdiction. But, in general a pension plan subject to ERISA will be precluded from paying him any portion of your pension unless or until the DRO is signed by all parties necessary, submitted to the plan and, most importantly, accepted by the plan as a QDRO.

It does.

There is no reason other than a failed 401a4 test that would preclude this.

I appreciate the detailed response. Not being a lawyer I'm not going to speculate as to how or if a technical failure results in negative tax consequences. This happens so rarely I don't think the IRS has it on its radar to decide on compliance.

Mathematically, I take exception to the logic. A little bit. I would restate it as: "If the effect of the amendment is to give at least one participant with a 411d6 protected benefit less as a relative percentage of the overall contribution, then it follows that the plan violates 411d6.:" The math is left to the student.

Well, as one who grew up in Silver Spring, hello from California. I think you are looking for something that doesn't exist. All of what you are looking at involves litigation. Most of what I'm discussing are cooperative filings. There are no positions to litigate, nothing to be ruled against and therefore nothing to be appealed or reported. One case involved something like the following. Assume a fictional Mitt Romney had not elected Roth treatment on his IRA but still managed to turn a hefty profit of 100 mill or so. Further assume he was married to somebody many years his junior. As he approached 70 and 1/2 he was not looking forward to the 401a9 distributions. Enter an order that assigned 99 million or so to his spouse. Poof. 401a9 distributions postponed. Does the fact that California courts will rubber stamp cooperative post-nuptual arrangements render them non-QDRO's? Never seen a test case.