chris Posted April 2, 2003 Posted April 2, 2003 Employee to become eligible in employer's profit sharing plan and MPP plan. Employee has told administrator that she has not seen her spouse in 8 years. I know Code Sec. 417(a)(2)(B) allows for spousal consent to not be obtained if plan administrator is satisfied that spouse cannot be located. What does/should a plan administrator do to become "satisfied" from a fiduciary point of view? try to obtain last known address of spouse, use letter forwarding service to get form to him to sign, etc............??
david rigby Posted April 2, 2003 Posted April 2, 2003 Not sure anything is required. Spousal approval usually has to do with distributions from a plan, rather than participation in the plan. I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice.
RTK Posted April 3, 2003 Posted April 3, 2003 Spousal consent would be required for beneficiary designations under the ps and qpsa waiver under mp (for non-spouse beneficiary). I have never seen anything specifically address steps the participant must follow to demonstrate that spouse cannot be located. I would think typical lost participant steps should suffice. However, I will add in the one missing spouse case I was asked about, the father of the participant was going to Thailand to look for the spouse. I will have to follow up on that some day.
chris Posted April 3, 2003 Author Posted April 3, 2003 That's where I was coming from in terms of suggested steps to take to locate the spouse. Didn't know if any different approach should be taken. Would be a good idea to take same steps since spouse would probably show up upon participant's death and want the money. This way the designated beneficiaries and the plan should be protected from any such potential reappearance of the spouse. Thanks for the input.
chris Posted April 3, 2003 Author Posted April 3, 2003 The other thing that comes to mind is the participant's getting a divorce. That way all involved would be protected...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now