Document reviews by QDROphile.

[WDIK]

Subtly sarcastic example.

Basically bland example.

Candidly critical example.

[QDROphile]

Please vote for Candidly Critical. It is always my first impulse and it saves a lot of time.

[Kirk Maldonado]

I vote that we make the poll broader than just the responses by QDROphile. Specifically, it would be interesting (at least to a few of us) to see what style of posts others prefer.

It was fortunate that the responses by QDROphile varied so much as to provide stark contrasts between the different choices.

I fear that if my responses had been the subject of the poll, there would have been another category: Tediously Technical.

Here is an example of such a response. If you want to read it in context, it is located at: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=29221&hl=

I hate to be hyper-technical, but:

That is a Revenue Procedure, not a Treasury Regulation;

That is an out of date version of that Revenue Procedure. The IRS updates it every year, and you are looking at the 2001 version instead of the 2005 version; and

There is a Revenue Procedure that is more specifically aimed at determination letter applications for retirement plans, which is Revenue Procedure 2005-4.

However, I didn't read 2005-4 to make sure that it covered the points about the content of the notice. But a more authoritative source would be the regulations under section 7476.

[R. Butler]

I vote for Candily Critical. The subtleties are just tedious.

[AndyH]

Candidly Critical wins my vote.

But the same reaction is quite valid regarding almost any draft DB plan QDRO and most customized documents written or revised post-Revenue Ruling 98-1, to be totally Candid.