"Does a Plan Administrator of an ERISA qualified plan have the authority to treat as a terminable interest what State law intended to be non-terminable, or what may be construed as implicitly terminable? In California there is a specific statute addressing the issue. In Maryland, my home state, the law authorizes the court to transfer an ownership interest in a pension or retirement plan,thereby evidencing an intention that the recipient Alternate Payee's ownership is not conditional, that is not terminable. This is an issue that comes up in connection with CSRS and FERS retirement annuity benefits."

"QDRO was filed post divorce and signed by both parties. The pension plan belongs to the wife. Husband received a set amount and the divorce agreement notes that he will remove the monies and either a) roll to an IRA or b) collect cash and pay tax penalties. Parties and judge signed QDRO on 4/14/2010. Alternate payee did not remove the monies as far as we can tell. He died in October of 2016. The QDRO did not identify beneficiaries. The husband did not remarry and had no will. He shares on biological child with the ex-wife and two stepchildren. What happens to his portion of the pension?"

"Some BenefitsLink neighbors have observed that a recordkeeper will incur considerable expenses to tool up for new distributions and other features SECURE 2.0 permits. And some have observed that, even if one knew or estimated that many or most plan sponsors don't want the newly permitted provisions, the expense to build a capability is almost unavoidable, because there will be some current and prospective service recipients that want a provision (or the opportunity and flexibility to choose it).... How should plan fiduciaries and recordkeepers together seek to allocate these expenses? ... Should a fee for processing an emergency personal expense distribution be less than, the same as, or more than the fee for processing a normal distribution? Why? Should a fee for processing a domestic-abuse distribution be less than, the same as, or more than the fee for processing a normal distribution? Why? Should a fee for processing a hardship distribution be less than, the same as, or more than the fee for processing a normal distribution? Why? Should a plan's sponsor -- using its non-fiduciary settlor powers to decide a plan's provisions, including charges -- favor or disfavor some kinds of distributions? Should a sponsor disfavor an emergency personal expense distribution by charging a higher distribution fee? Should a sponsor disfavor a hardship distribution by charging a higher distribution fee?"

"Not sure this was done correctly. Participant terminated, plan funded with annuity and life insurance. Insurance policy is the only distribution, the policy ownership and beneficiary were changed to the individual. Of course, the insurance company does not prepare 1099s. From the broker: 'What we did was, take the cash value as a distribution and rolled it into the participant's annuity contract.' Insurance company told the client this is an unreportable transfer from the life insurance policy to the annuity. Isn't the cash value taxable??"

"Hi. My employer subsidizes the premium payments for employee coverage. They pay the greater of 50% or $300. Is this permissible? I would think that for younger employees, the greater would usually be $300. For older employees, the greater would likely be 50%. Thus, there would be a different employer subsidy depending on age. Is this legal?"

"Suppose employer provides a fringe benefit which is taxable. Further suppose that the employer provides a 'gross up' on the taxable fringe benefit. Finally, let's suppose that this particular fringe benefit IS excluded for plan purposes, and that fringe benefit taxable amount is $1,000, and the 'gross up' is an additional $250. Is the 'gross up' considered part of the taxable fringe benefit, and thus excluded for plan purposes? Or, is it considered separate, and therefore normal plan wages since not excluded?"