Kirk Maldonado

Try searching the message boards first. I think that Harry Beker said that it could be done.

I wouldn't necessary make that assumption. The plan may just be acting reflexively.

Jbentz: What is the PHI that the COBRA provider would receive in the standard situation?

Wouldn't the answer be governed by IRC Section 411©? It would seem hard, but not impossible, for the PBGC to impose a different approach for determining the portion of the benefit attributable to employee contributions.

Oops.

I must make a retraction of my prior posting. Based upon my research, the DOL has stated that the information must be provided to the (soon to be former) spouse. The following is from the DOL publication entitled QDROs...The Division of Pensions Through Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (whioch is available on the DOL website): 2-1: What information is an administrator required to provide a prospective alternate payee before the administrator receives a domestic relations order? Congress conditioned an alternate payee's right to an assignment of a participant's pension benefit on the prospective alternate payee's obtaining a domestic relations order that satisfies specific informational and other requirements. It is the view of the department that Congress therefore intended prospective alternate payees -- spouses, former spouses, children, and other dependents of a participant who are involved in a domestic relations proceedings -- to have access to plan and participant benefit information sufficient to prepare a QDRO. Such information might include the summary plan description, relevant plan documents, and a statement of the participant's benefit entitlements. The department believes that Congress did not intend to require prospective alternate payees to submit a domestic relations order to the plan as a prerequisite to establishing the prospective alternate payee's rights to information in connection with a domestic relations proceeding. However, it is the view of the department that a plan administrator may condition disclosure of such information on a prospective alternate payee's providing information sufficient to reasonably establish that the disclosure request is being made in connection with a domestic relations proceeding.

Seller.

412(i), where is the guidance? Be careful of what you ask for; you may actually get it!

What does the plan say?

I think that you need to retain labor counsel. Many states (e.g., California) place limits upon what actions you can take with respect to persons on workers' compensation leave.

The amount of the withdrawal liability can be astronomical. I worked on a case at least ten years ago where the multiemployer plan assessed withdrawal liability in an amount in excess of $50,000,000 as a result of a sale of assets transaction. You should heed MBozek's advice about getting competent ERISA counsel.

MWyatt: You aren't the only person who has suffered those unfortunate circumstances.

Robin: Thanks for posting that information. I'm going to send an e-mail message to RIA that they need to update their online version of these regs. (Now you know why I added that caveat to my prior posting that I wasn't positive that those were the current version of the regs.)

Effen: If you think that there is any chance that the IRS will come out with good news regarding aggressive Section 412(i) plans, I predict that you will be sorely disappointed. All the signs point in the opposite direction.

I seem to recall that there was a DOL Advisor Opinion on a topic like this a number of years ago. It may or may not be on point, I just don't recall. But I'm pretty sure that it addressed some privacy concerns relating to the disclosure of the amount of a participant's benefit to someone other than the participant.

Don't you have that same issue relating to the compensation base with respect to regular (i.e, non-Safe Harbor) matching contributions?

If the corporation has no employees and no members of the board of directors, how could corporation validly execute an amendment to the plan?

If the company is out of business, how can they keep amending the plan to satisfy all of the qualification requirements (that change continually)?

The post didn't say that they were still employed either. The operative word in my prior post was "if".

This is why most DB plans don't accept rollovers.

Tom Poje: Wouldn't the participant have to be fully vested before you could distribute the ACP amounts?

If the participants are no longer employed there, I would guess that the odds of collecting the money are close to zero.

What is the plan's definition of pay for this purpose?

Pax: Are you suggesting. for example, that employers may not be prudent if they blindly rely upon the actuarial (and other) assumptions underlying any and all Section 412A(i) plans? Isn't that heresy?

I think that simply mentioning the class would be insufficient for most plan participants, unless you also explain the difference between the classes. I think that what class they belong to is a relevant consideration that participants should know when deciding whether or not to invest in that fund. Thus, I would vote for more disclosure.