gregmk

Check out: I.R.C. 411(a)(11)(A) Treas. Reg. §1.401(a)(31)-1, Q&A 11 Treas. Reg. §31.3405(c)-1 Q&A 14

Personally I don't love the idea of anyone promising not to do anything or the idea of suspending the benefit if the administrator has notice of a potential pending DRO. I would change procedure to not suspend anything until at least a draft DRO is received. Too much gray area there. If someone shows up with a QDRO after the benefits have been distributed, that's unfortunate, but not the plan's problem. If the divorced parties want to agree not to get a QDRO, that's between them. If one of them violates the agreement, let them go after each other. See this thread for more:

The plan does not specify that the AP must commence when the participant does, which is the source of my problem. I was thinking that maybe the plan could argue that allowing the AP to defer beyond the participant’s commencement date would be impermissible because it provides greater than the participant’s benefit because the participant is only entitled to one benefit commencement date under the terms of the plan. I think it’s a pretty tenuous argument though.

Right now neither participant nor alternate payee is nearing RMD age, but I think what QDROphile is getting at is that because the plan does not compell an alternate payee to commence no later than the participant does, a RMD issue could arrise if the AP decides to defer. QDROphile, would you say that the reason plans commonly require APs to commence no later than participants is to avoid a potential RMD issue? Or is there another reason I'm not aware of?

I have a seperate interest DRO for a DB plan that allows an alternate payee to commence benefits any time after the participant's earliest retirement date. I was under the impresssion that alternate payees had to commence no later than a participant, as QDROs are commonly drafted to include that language, but I could not find a citation to back that up. This is not an RMD issue. Any thoughts?

Lance, I unfortunately can't make the IFEBP conference this year, though I'd be appreciative if you relayed any additional info you do come up with. Since I originally posted my question, I've heard over informal channels that HHS is planning on simplifying the process to accommodate multiemployer plans before the November 15 due date, but that is all I know. -Greg

Has anyone successfully obtained an HPID as required in 45 C.F.R. § 162.512 for a self-insured multiemployer welfare plan? The process seems to involve registering a "company" with HHS. I'm not clear on how a multiemployer plan would do this. Potentially register the board of trustees as the "company"? I'd appreciate any thoughts. -Greg

Thanks for the thorough response, Jim. I agree on all counts. I'm trying to think of parties that would be prejudiced if the trustees make a bad deal on withdrawal liability. 1. The other employers (because a bad deal could hasten plan termination or mass withdrawal and require higher future contributions), 2. The participants and beneficiaries for similar reasons, 3. The PBGC, who may have to pay more, sooner. Do they all have a remedy for breach of fiduciary duty? Just thinking out loud. Any thoughts on the ability of the trustees to release a withdrawing employer from future liability in case of mass withdrawal? My colleagues and I seemed to think it was a "bridge too far", but then again, I couldn't point to a specific reason to disallow it.

Not related to same-sex marriages exactly, but an approach I like is allowing an option for "married but separated" or just "separated." Participants will sometimes check this option, giving the administrator the grounds to inquire further about the legal status of the marriage.

There's no way a plan could permit participants in pay status to waive their benefits.

I'm not sure this is in the rules, but it is clearly stated in Q1 of EBSA's ACA Implementation FAQs Part II.

I was referring to a grandfathered plan that offered spousal coverage and amended to no longer offer spousal coverage at all, regardless of whether the spouse has an offer of coverage elsewhere. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe the ACA requires spousal coverage (unlike dependent coverage.)

Has anyone found an answer to this questions? Specifically, I can't find anything that prevents a grandfathered plan from dropping spousal coverage and maintaining grandfathered status? I suppose it could be considered a reduction in employer contribution rate for the "employee + spouse teir," but I think that's a stretch.

I know this thread has been dead for a while, but if anyone has any cases involving the enforcability of a discounted withdrawal liability settlement, I'd love to read them.

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure. (It wasn't my idea.) But my best guess is this: imagine drugs are covered at 80% before $20,000, 75% between $20,000 and $60,000 and say 70% after $60,000. Would that be an annual dollar limit or just stepped cost-sharing? After all, there's no total limit on the number of dollars the plan would cover. Does the annual dollar limit prohibition prohibit all stepped cost sharing? On a side note, looks like we share the same initials. I'm sure this message board is big enough for the both