"A couple married on September 7, 2007 and divorced on July 16, 2019. The plan is a cash balance plan with Koch Industries (Georgia Pacific). The Judgment of Divorce awards the Alternate payee 50% of the Participant’s vested account balance under the plan earned during the marraige. I drafted the QDRO according. The plan administrator denied preapproval of the QDRO, stating that a single valuation date is required. To be fair, the QDRO quidelines state as much. However, since this a common J of D provision, I have used the above language successly with other plan administrators. I have researched alternative formulas like: Value on date of divorce x months a participant while married/total months a participant x 50% = award to Alternate Payee. Does anyone have a better idea, especially if you have worked with Koch Industries?"

[Advert.]

Are your participants prepared for retirement? Get the Ready or Not: Your Retirement Planning Guide -- it helps employees prepare for a satisfying and comfortable retirement. Quantity discounts on group orders for all your participants! Order today!

"A client terminates her DB plan (non-PBGC) and proceeds to transfer all of the assets to her IRA. After informing her that she must return the funds over and above her accrued benefit, she refuses. Participants have not been paid out and the amount transferred exceeds her Section 415 limit. If the situation persists, what are our obligations and duties with respect to the client and how should we proceed. As I see it, we could

1. withdraw and not perform further services to the plan.
2. correctly fill out final Form 5500, knowing it will prompt an audit.
3. report the failure to the DOL as a criminal fiduciary
4. 1 and 3.
5. 2 and 3.

Do professional designations affect the result? Thoughts?"

"Plan year end is November 30th. Plan will be terminating soon after December 1, 2019. Last favorable LOD dated 4/28/2018 with respect to amendment and restatement signed February 10, 2017 that had an effective date of 12/1/2016. The LOD states that it considered the 2015 Cumulative List of Changes in Plan Qualification Requirements. In conjunction with a plan termination soon after December 1, 2019 I presume that there is an amendment needed that considers a more recent Cumulative List. If so, what is the year of the latest Cumulative List that must be included? Could the Cumulative List amendment requirement be sidestepped by adopting a volume submitter plan by the end of this cycle's end date of 4/30/2020?"

"ERISA 403(b) plan. If a plan has a NRD of age 60, and wants to amend it to age 65... Currently all accounts are all 100% vested at all times. In-service withdrawals are NOT currently allowed other than for hardship or disability. Allocation conditions for employer match/nonelective are NOT waived for termination of employment after attaining NRD. I don't much see the point in amending NRD to age 65, as it doesn't accomplish anything under the current terms of the plan. But if they did amend, is there any problem? I don't see a cutback of any benefit, but it just feels odd -- anything obvious I'm missing?"

"I have a participant whose loan was repaid on one payroll but the loan payment deduction was not stopped for two more payrolls. Can I just refund the incorrect deductions to him?"

"Is Vested Amount of 401k net of outstanding loans? Do I subtract the current loans from the vested amount, or are those loans already accounted for in the vested amount?"

"My client is a multiemployer pension plan that has terminated in a mass withdrawal. It is projected to become insolvent and run out of funds in the next plan year. Its only sources of funds are two employers who made complete withdrawals and are making installment payments of withdrawal liability. As you likely know, in that situation, the plan has to be amended to eliminate benefits in excess of the greater of the amount of the plan's assets or the extent of the PBGC's guarantee. See ERISA Section 4281(c). In addition, to the extent that benefit payments under the insolvent plan exceed the resource benefit level (i.e., the difference between the plan's level of benefits and the plan's assets, but no less than the PBGC guarantee), any benefits above the PBGC guarantee shall be suspended. To me, there may be little or no difference between the level at which benefits have to be eliminated versus the level at which benefits have to be suspended. Has anyone seen a sample amendment to reduce/suspend benefit levels of the type described here? If so, could you please supply me with a copy?"

"A client just shared that the management letter from their audit 'strongly suggested' that the plan sponsor (!) contact participants who were still invested in the Target Date 2010 and 2015 funds to remind them that they were in funds whose dates had passed. Am I crazy, or is this wrong on so many levels?"

"Are the IRS and DOL entertaining waivers of late filing fees? I was under the impression that after the advent of the late filer program, they didn't want to be bothered with 'my dog ate it' stories. I just heard someone say that they do it regularly. Also do(n't) late filing penalties go back to the original due date if you miss the extension?"

"Why is this not the definition for a deferred vested benefit in a 401k plan? --

'If you terminate employment and you have a vested retirement benefit that you are not eligible to receive until later, that information will be reported by your plan to the [IRS], which, in turn, will inform the Social Security Administration (SSA). This information must also be provided to you by the plan. The Social Security Administration will tell you, upon request, whether you were reported as having a deferred vested benefit under any plan.'

Why report a person on a form if they choose to keep their funds in a participant-directed 401k account, receive quarterly statements, has access to real-time balances on the website, and do not have to wait until retirement date in order to take a distribution?"