QDROs

The Division of Retirement 

Benefits Through Qualified 

Domestic Relations Orders

U.S. Department of Labor

Employee Benefits Security Administration
This publication has been developed by the U.S. Department of Labor, 

Employee Benefits Security Administration.

To view this and other EBSA publications, visit the agency’s website at

www.dol.gov/ebsa.

Or call toll-free at: 1-866-444-3272

This material will be made available in alternative format to persons with 

disabilities upon request:

Voice phone: (202) 693-8664

TTY: (202) 501-3911

This publication constitutes a small entity compliance guide for 

purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

of 1996.
QDROs

The Division of Retirement 

Benefits Through Qualified 

Domestic Relations Orders

U.S. Department of Labor

Employee Benefits Security Administration

2014

Introduction.......................................................................................................

Chapter 1 Qualified Domestic Relations Orders: 

An Overview...................................................................

Question 1-1: What is a Qualified Domestic Relations Order?.....................

Question 1-2: What is a “domestic relations order”?.....................................

Question 1-3: Must a “domestic relations order” be issued by a state 

court?.......................................................................................

Question 1-4: Who can be an “alternate payee”............................................

Question 1-5: What information must a domestic relations order 

contain to qualify as a QDRO under ERISA?........................

Question 1-6: Are there other requirements that a domestic relations 

order must meet to be a QDRO?............................................

Question 1-7: May a QDRO be part of the divorce decree or property 

settlement?..............................................................................

Question 1-8: Must a domestic relations order be issued as part of a 

divorce proceeding to be a QDRO?........................................

Question 1-9: Will a domestic relations order fail to be a QDRO solely 

because of the timing of issuance?.........................................

Question 1-10: May a QDRO provide for payment to the guardian of 

an alternate payee?..................................................................

1

3

5

6

7

9

10

11

15

17

17

19

20

24

27

31

35

Contents
37

39

55

59

Question 1-11: Can a QDRO cover more than one plan?...............................

Question 1-12: Must all QDROs have the same provisions?..........................

Question 1-13: Who determines whether an order is a QDRO?.....................

Question 1-14: Who is the “administrator” of the plan?.................................

Question 1-15: Will the Department of Labor issue advisory opinions on 

whether a domestic relations order is a QDRO?....................

Chapter 2 Administration of QDROs: Determining Qualified 

Status and Paying Benefits...........................................

Question 2-1: What information is an administrator required to 

provide a prospective alternate payee before the 

administrator receives a domestic relations order?.................

Question 2-2: What are the duties of a plan administrator upon receipt 

of a domestic relations order by the plan?..............................

Question 2-3: Is a plan required to have procedures for determining 

whether a domestic relations order is qualified?.....................

Question 2-4: What requirements must a plan’s QDRO procedures

meet?.......................................................................................

Question 2-5: Are there other matters that should be addressed in a 

plan’s QDRO procedures?.......................................................

Question 2-6: May a plan administrator charge a participant or

alternate payee for determining the qualified status of a

domestic relations order?........................................................

Question 2-7: May plan administrators provide parties with a model

form or forms to assist in the preparation of a QDRO?..........

Question 2-8: In determining the qualified status of a domestic

relations order, is the administrator required to

determine the validity of the order under state domestic 

relations law?..........................................................................
1

Question 2-9: Is a plan administrator required to reject a domestic 

relations order as defective if the order fails to specify 

factual identifying information that is easily obtainable 

by the plan administrator?.......................................................

Question 2-10: How long may the plan administrator take to determine 

whether a domestic relations order is a QDRO?.....................

Question 2-11: What must the plan administrator do during the

determination process to protect against wrongly

paying retirement benefits to the participant that would be

paid to the alternate payee if the domestic relations

order had been determined to be a QDRO?............................

Question 2-12: What are an administrator’s duties with respect to a 

domestic relations order received by the plan before the 

beginning of the “18-month period”?.....................................

Question 2-13: What are an administrator’s duties with respect to a

domestic relations order received on or after the date on

which benefits would be payable to an alternate payee

under the order?.......................................................................

Question 2-14: What kind of notice is required to be provided by a

plan administrator following a QDRO determination?...........

Question 2-15: What effect does an order that a plan administrator has 

determined to be a QDRO have on the administration

of the plan?.............................................................................

Question 2-16: What disclosure rights does an alternate payee have 

under a QDRO?......................................................................

Question 2-17: What happens to the rights created by a QDRO if the 

plan to which the QDRO applies is amended, merged

into another plan, or is maintained by a successor

employer?................................................................................

Question 2-18: What happens to the rights created by a QDRO if a

plan is terminated?...................................................................
Question 2-19: What happens to the rights created by a QDRO if a

defined benefit plan is terminated and the Pension

Benefit Guaranty Corporation becomes trustee of the

plans?.......................................................................................

Chapter 3 Drafting QDROs...........................................................

Question 3-1: What is the best way to divide a participant’s retirement

benefits in a QDRO?...............................................................

Question 3-2: How much can be given to an alternate payee through

a QDRO?................................................................................

Question 3-3: Why are the reasons for dividing the retirement benefits

important?................................................................................

Question 3-4: In deciding how to divide the participant’s retirement

benefits, why is understanding the type of retirement

plan important?........................................................................

Question 3-5: What are “survivor benefits,” and why should a 

QDRO take them into account?..............................................

Question 3-6: How may the participant’s retirement benefit be 

divided if the retirement plan is a defined contribution 

plan?.......................................................................................

Question 3-7: How may the participant’s retirement benefit be

divided if the retirement plan is a defined benefit plan?.........

Question 3-8: May the QDRO specify the form in which the

alternate payee’s benefits will be paid?..................................

Question 3-9: When can the alternate payee get the benefits

assigned under a QDRO?.......................................................

Question 3-10: What is “earliest retirement age,” and why is it

important?................................................................................
Appendices

Appendix A Department of Labor Interpretive Guidance...........................

Advisory Opinion 90-46A.......................................................

Advisory Opinion 92-17A.......................................................

Advisory Opinion 99-13A.......................................................

Advisory Opinion 2000-09A..................................................

Advisory Opinion 2001-06A..................................................

Advisory Opinion 2002-03A..................................................

Advisory Opinion 2004-02A..................................................

Field Assistance Bulletin 2003-3............................................

Appendix B ERISA Advisory Opinion Procedure......................................

Appendix C IRS Sample Language for a Qualified Domestic

Relations Order........................................................................

More than 46 million private wage and salary workers are currently covered by employerprovided retirement plans in the United States. For many of these Americans, retirement 

savings represent one of their most significant assets. For this reason, whether and how 

to divide a participant’s interest in a retirement plan are often important considerations 

in separation, divorce, and other domestic relations proceedings. While the division of 

marital property generally is governed by state domestic relations law, any assignments of 

retirement interests must also comply with Federal law, namely the Employee Retirement 

Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code). 

Under ERISA and the Code, retirement interests may be assigned only if the judgment, 

decree, or order creating or recognizing a spouse’s, former spouse’s, child’s, or other 

dependent’s interest in an individual’s retirement benefits constitutes a “qualified domestic 

relations order” or “QDRO.” 

This booklet was prepared by the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) of 

the U.S. Department of Labor to provide general guidance about QDROs1 to employers, 

retirement plan administrators, participants, beneficiaries, employee benefit professionals, 

and domestic relations specialists. The views expressed in this booklet represent the views 

of the Department of Labor. 

This publication provides general information about the qualified domestic relations 

orders (QDROs) under the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 

1974 (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. More information about QDROs 

submitted to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation after a retirement plan terminates 

and PBGC becomes the trustee is available from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

at www.pbgc.gov.

Chapter 1 provides a general overview of the QDRO provisions and the basic rules 

governing the content of QDROs.

Chapter 2 focuses on the duties of retirement plan administrators in making QDRO 

determinations and in administering retirement plans for which related QDROs have been 

issued.

1

The Department of Labor has jurisdiction to interpret the QDRO provisions set forth in section 206(d)(3) of 

ERISA and section 414(p) of the Code (except to the extent provided in section 401(n) of the Code) and the 

provisions governing fiduciary duties owed with respect to domestic relations orders and QDROs. This booklet 

was developed in consultation with the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service.

Introduction

1
Chapter 3 focuses on issues to be considered in drafting a QDRO. This chapter also 

discusses the provisions of section 205 of ERISA, which are substantially parallel to the 

provisions contained in sections 401(a)(11) and 417 of the Code to the extent these sections 

apply to QDROs. The provisions of section 205 require that retirement plans provide the 

spouses of retirement plan participants with certain rights to survivor benefits, which are 

relevant to the provisions governing QDROs. Sample QDRO language developed by the 

Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, in consultation with the 

Department of Labor, is provided in Appendix C. 

It is the hope of EBSA that the information furnished in this booklet will promote better 

understanding of the rights and obligations of those involved in domestic relations 

proceedings and those responsible for administering retirement plans.2 A better 

understanding of these provisions of law should reduce the costs and burdens associated 

with QDRO determinations for both retirement plans and the affected individuals.

The Department recognizes that this booklet does not answer every question that may 

arise in the development and administration of QDROs. In this regard, the Department 

is willing to consider addressing specific issues through its advisory opinion process (but 

see Question 1-15 regarding advisory opinion requests on whether a domestic relations 

order is a QDRO). The ERISA Advisory Opinion Procedure governing this process is set 

forth in Appendix B of this booklet.

2 As used in this booklet, the term “retirement plan” refers to plans defined in section 3(2) of ERISA and 

means generally any plan established or maintained by an employer or an employee organization (or both) 

that provides retirement income to employees or results in the deferral of income by employees for periods 

extending to the termination of covered employment or beyond.

2
This chapter includes a general overview of the provisions of Federal law governing the 

assignment of retirement benefits in a domestic relations proceeding and the requirements 

that apply in determining whether a domestic relations order is a qualified domestic relations 

order (QDRO). The following areas are addressed: 

Who can be an “alternate payee”? 

What information must be included in a domestic relations order in order for it 

to be “qualified”? 

Who determines whether a domestic relations order is a QDRO? 

In general, ERISA and the Code do not permit a participant to assign or alienate the 

participant’s interest in a retirement plan to another person. These “anti-assignment and 

alienation” rules are intended to ensure that a participant’s retirement benefits are actually 

available to provide financial support during the participant’s retirement years. A limited 

exception to the anti-assignment and alienation rules is provided for assignments of 

retirement benefits through qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs).

Under the QDRO exception, a domestic relations order may assign some or all of a 

participant’s retirement benefits to a spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent to 

satisfy family support or marital property obligations if and only if the order is a “qualified 

domestic relations order.” ERISA requires that each retirement plan pay benefits in 

accordance with the applicable requirements of any “qualified domestic relations order” that 

has been submitted to the plan administrator. The plan administrator’s determinations on 

whether a domestic relations order is a QDRO, therefore, have significant implications for 

both the parties to a domestic relations proceeding and the plan. The following questions 

and answers are intended to provide an overview of the Federal requirements a domestic 

relations order must satisfy to be considered a QDRO.

Chapter 1

Qualified Domestic Relations Orders: 

An Overview

p

p

p

3
1-1: What is a Qualified Domestic Relations Order? 

A “qualified domestic relations order” (QDRO) is: 

a domestic relations order 

that creates or recognizes the existence of an “alternate payee’s” right 

to receive, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to receive, all or 

a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a 

retirement plan, and

that includes certain information and meets certain other requirements. 

See Questions 1-5 and 1-6. 

Question 1-4 explains who may be an “alternate payee.” 

[ERISA § 206(d)(3)(B)(i); IRC § 414(p)(1)(A)]

1-2: What is a “domestic relations order”? 

To be recognized as a QDRO, an order must be a “domestic relations 

order.” A domestic relations order is: 

a judgment, decree, or order (including the approval of a property 

settlement) 

that is made pursuant to state domestic relations law (including 

community property law) and 

that relates to the provision of child support, alimony payments, or 

marital property rights for the benefit of a spouse, former spouse, child, 

or other dependent of a participant. 

m

m

m

m

m

m

Q

Q

4
A state authority, generally a court, must actually issue a judgment, 

order, or decree or otherwise formally approve a property settlement 

agreement before it can be a “domestic relations order” under ERISA. 

The mere fact that a property settlement is agreed to and signed by the 

parties will not, in and of itself, cause the agreement to be a domestic 

relations order. 

There is no requirement that both parties to a marital proceeding sign 

or otherwise endorse or approve an order. It is also not necessary that 

the retirement plan be brought into state court or made a party to a 

domestic relations proceeding for an order issued in that proceeding 

to be a “domestic relations order” or a “qualified domestic relations 

order.” Indeed, because state law is generally preempted to the extent 

that it relates to retirement plans, the Department takes the position 

that retirement plans cannot be joined as a party in a domestic relations 

proceeding pursuant to state law. Moreover, retirement plans are neither 

permitted nor required to follow the terms of domestic relations orders 

purporting to assign retirement benefits unless they are QDROs. 

[ERISA §§ 206(d)(3)(B)(ii), 514(a), 514(b)(7); IRC § 414(p)(1)(B)]

1-3: Must a “domestic relations order” be issued by a state 

court? 

No. A domestic relations order may be issued by any state agency or 

instrumentality with the authority to issue judgments, decrees, or orders, 

or to approve property settlement agreements, pursuant to state domestic 

relations law (including community property law). 

[ERISA § 206(d)(3)(B)(ii); IRC § 414(p)(1)(B); Advisory Opinion 

2001-06A (Appendix A)]

1-4: Who can be an “alternate payee”? 

A domestic relations order can be a QDRO only if it creates or recognizes 

the existence of an alternate payee’s right to receive, or assigns to an 

alternate payee the right to receive, all or a part of a participant’s benefits. 

Q

Q

5
For purposes of the QDRO provisions, an alternate payee cannot be 

anyone other than a spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of 

a participant. 

[ERISA § 206(d)(3)(K), IRC § 414(p)(8)]

1-5: What information must a domestic relations order 

contain to qualify as a QDRO under ERISA? 

QDROs must contain the following information: 

the name and last known mailing address of the participant and each 

alternate payee; 

the name of each plan to which the order applies; 

the dollar amount or percentage (or the method of determining the 

amount or percentage) of the benefit to be paid to the alternate payee; 

and 

the number of payments or time period to which the order applies. 

[ERISA § 206(d)(3)(C)(i)-(iv); IRC § 414(p)(2)(A)-(D)]

1-6: Are there other requirements that a domestic relations 

order must meet to be a QDRO? 

Yes. There are certain provisions that a QDRO must not contain: 

The order must not require a plan to provide an alternate payee or 

participant with any type or form of benefit, or any option, not otherwise 

provided under the plan; 

The order must not require a plan to provide for increased benefits 

(determined on the basis of actuarial value); 

The order must not require a plan to pay benefits to an alternate payee 

that are required to be paid to another alternate payee under another 

order previously determined to be a QDRO; and 

Q

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Q

6
The order must not require a plan to pay benefits to an alternate payee 

in the form of a qualified joint and survivor annuity for the lives of the 

alternate payee and his or her subsequent spouse. 

[ERISA §§ 206(d)(3)(D)(i)-(iii), 206(d)(3)(E)(i)(III); 

IRC §§ 414(p)(3)(A)-(C), 414(p)(4)(A)(iii)]

1-7: May a QDRO be part of the divorce decree or property 

settlement? 

Yes. There is nothing in ERISA or the Code that requires that a QDRO 

(that is, the provisions that create or recognize an alternate payee’s interest 

in a participant’s retirement benefits) be issued as a separate judgment, 

decree, or order. Accordingly, a QDRO may be included as part of a divorce 

decree or court- approved property settlement, or issued as a separate 

order, without affecting its “qualified” status. The order must satisfy the 

requirements described above to be a QDRO. 

[See generally ERISA § 206(d)(3)(B); IRC § 414(p)(1)]

1-8: Must a domestic relations order be issued as part of a 

divorce proceeding to be a QDRO?

No. A domestic relations order that provides for child support or recognizes 

marital property rights may be a QDRO, without regard to the existence 

of a divorce proceeding. Such an order, however, must be issued pursuant 

to state domestic relations law and create or recognize the rights of an 

individual who is an “alternate payee” (spouse, former spouse, child, or 

other dependent of a participant). 

An order issued in a probate proceeding begun after the death of the 

participant that purports to recognize an interest with respect to retirement 

benefits arising solely under state community property law, but that doesn’t 

relate to the dissolution of a marriage or recognition of support obligations, 

is not a QDRO because the proceeding does not relate to a legal separation, 

marital dissolution, or family support obligation. 

Q

Q

m

7
[ERISA § 206(d)(3)(B); IRC § 414(p)(1); Advisory Opinion 90-46A 

(Appendix A); see Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 121 S.Ct. 1322, 149L. Ed. 

2d 264 (2001); see Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833, 117 S.Ct. 1754 

(1997)]

1-9: Will a domestic relations order fail to be a QDRO solely 

because of the timing of issuance?

No, not if it otherwise meets the QDRO requirements under ERISA. A 

domestic relations order issued after the participant’s death, divorce, or 

annuity starting date, or subsequent to an existing QDRO, will not fail to be 

treated as a QDRO solely because of the timing of issuance. For example, 

a subsequent domestic relations order between the same parties which 

revises an earlier QDRO does not fail to be a QDRO solely because it was 

issued after the first QDRO. Likewise, a subsequent domestic relations 

order between different parties which directs a portion of the participant’s 

previously unallocated benefits to a second alternate payee, does not 

fail to be a QDRO solely because of the existence of a previous QDRO. 

Further, a domestic relations order requiring a portion of a participant’s 

annuity benefit payments be paid to an alternate payee does not fail to be 

a QDRO solely because the domestic relations order was issued after the 

annuity starting date. 

[29 C.F.R. 2530.206; see section 1001 of the Pension Protection Act 

of 2006, Pub. L. 109-280, 120 Stat. 780 (Aug. 17, 2006)]

1-10 : May a QDRO provide for payment to the guardian of an 

alternate payee?

Yes. If an alternate payee is a minor or is legally incompetent, the order 

can require payment to someone with legal responsibility for the alternate 

payee (such as a guardian or a party acting in loco parentis in the case of 

a child, or a trustee as agent for the alternate payee). 

Q

Q

8
[See Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, Explanation of Technical 

Corrections to the Tax Reform Act of 1984 and Other Recent Tax 

Legislation, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (Comm. Print 1987) at 222.] 

1-11: Can a QDRO cover more than one plan?

Yes. A QDRO can assign rights to retirement benefits under more than 

one retirement plan of the same or different employers as long as each plan 

and the assignment of benefit rights under each plan are clearly specified. 

[ERISA § 206(d)(3)(C)(iv); IRC § 414(p)(2)(D)]

1-12: Must all QDROs have the same provisions?

No. Although every QDRO must contain certain provisions, such as the 

names and addresses of the participant and alternate payee(s) and the name 

of the plan(s), the specific content of the rest of the QDRO will depend, as 

explained in more detail in Chapter 3, on the type of retirement plan, the 

nature of the participant’s retirement benefits, the purposes behind issuing 

the order, and the intent of the drafting parties. 

1-13: Who determines whether an order is a QDRO?

Under Federal law, the administrator of the retirement plan that provides 

the benefits affected by an order is the individual (or entity) initially 

responsible for determining whether a domestic relations order is a QDRO. 

Plan administrators have specific responsibilities and duties with respect 

to determining whether a domestic relations order is a QDRO. Plan 

administrators, as plan fiduciaries, are required to discharge their duties 

prudently and solely in the interest of plan participants and beneficiaries. 

Among other things, plans must establish reasonable procedures to 

determine the qualified status of domestic relations orders and to administer 

distributions pursuant to qualified orders. Administrators are required 

to follow the plan’s procedures for making QDRO determinations. 

Administrators also are required to furnish notice to participants and 

alternate payees of the receipt of a domestic relations order and to furnish 

Q

Q

Q

9
a copy of the plan’s procedures for determining the qualified status of 

such orders. See Chapter 2 for a detailed discussion of the duties and 

responsibilities of plan administrators in making QDRO determinations. 

It is the view of the Department of Labor that a state court (or other state 

agency or instrumentality with the authority to issue domestic relations 

orders) does not have jurisdiction to determine whether an issued domestic 

relations order constitutes a “qualified domestic relations order.” In the 

view of the Department, jurisdiction to challenge a plan administrator’s 

decision about the qualified status of an order lies exclusively in Federal 

court. 

[ERISA §§ 206(d)(3)(G)(i) and (ii), 404(a), 502(a)(3), 502(e), 514; 

IRC § 414(p)(6)(A)(ii)]

1-14: Who is the “administrator” of the plan?

The “administrator” of an employee benefit plan is the individual or entity 

specifically designated in the plan documents as the administrator. If the 

plan documents do not designate an administrator, the administrator is 

the employer maintaining the plan, or, in the case of a plan maintained 

by more than one employer, the association, committee, joint board of 

trustees, or similar group representing the parties maintaining the plan. 

The name, address, and phone number of the plan administrator is required 

to be included in the plan’s summary plan description. The summary plan 

description is a document that the administrator is required to furnish to 

each participant and to each beneficiary receiving benefits. It summarizes 

the rights and benefits of participants and beneficiaries and the obligations 

of the plan. 

[ERISA §§ 3(16), 102(b), 29 CFR § 2520.102-3(f); IRC § 414(g), 

Treas. Reg. § 1.414(g)-1]

Q

10
1-15: Will the Department of Labor issue advisory opinions 

on whether a domestic relations order is a QDRO?

No. A determination of whether an order is a QDRO necessarily requires 

an interpretation of the specific provisions of the plan or plans to which 

the order applies and the application of those provisions to specific facts, 

including a determination of the participant’s actual retirement benefits 

under the plan(s). The Department will not issue opinions on such 

inherently factual matters. 

[See ERISA Procedure 76-1, 41 Fed. Reg. 36281 (1976)

(Appendix B)]

Q

11

This chapter describes the duties of a plan administrator in determining the qualified status 

of domestic relations orders and administering distributions under QDROs. The following 

areas are addressed: 

What are the plan administrator’s responsibilities in furnishing information to a 

participant and alternate payee? 

What measures must a plan administrator take to protect the plan participant’s 

benefits upon receipt of a domestic relations order? 

What procedures must a plan administrator follow in determining whether a 

domestic relations order is a QDRO? 

ERISA imposes a number of responsibilities on the plan administrator relating to the 

handling of domestic relations orders. As a plan fiduciary, the administrator is required to 

discharge these responsibilities prudently and solely in the interest of the plan’s participants 

and beneficiaries. It is the view of the Department that the prudent discharge of a fiduciary’s 

responsibilities with respect to the handling of domestic relations orders, like other areas 

of plan administration, requires plan administrators to take steps to avoid unnecessary and 

excessive administrative burdens and costs to the plan. The Department believes that the 

adoption of procedures and policies designed to facilitate, rather than impede, the timely 

processing and perfection of domestic relations orders generally will serve to minimize 

plan burdens and costs attendant to QDRO determinations.

The following questions and answers are intended to provide guidance on the discharge 

of an administrator’s obligations under the QDRO and fiduciary responsibility provisions 

of ERISA. 

Chapter 2

Administration of QDRO: Determining 

Qualified Status and Paying Benefits

p

p

p

13
2-1: What information is an administrator required to 

provide a prospective alternate payee before the 

administrator receives a domestic relations order?

Congress conditioned an alternate payee’s right to an assignment of 

a participant’s retirement benefit on the prospective alternate payee’s 

obtaining a domestic relations order that satisfies specific informational 

and other requirements. It is the view of the Department that Congress 

therefore intended prospective alternate payees -- spouses, former spouses, 

children, and other dependents of a participant who are involved in a 

domestic relations proceeding -- to have access to plan and participant 

benefit information sufficient to prepare a QDRO. Such information 

might include the summary plan description, relevant plan documents, 

and a statement of the participant’s benefit entitlements. 

The Department believes that Congress did not intend to require 

prospective alternate payees to submit a domestic relations order to the 

plan as a prerequisite to establishing the prospective alternate payee’s 

rights to information in connection with a domestic relations proceeding. 

However, it is the view of the Department that a plan administrator may 

condition disclosure of such information on a prospective alternate payee’s 

providing information sufficient to reasonably establish that the disclosure 

request is being made in connection with a domestic relations proceeding. 

It is the Department’s understanding that many domestic relations orders 

fail initially to qualify when submitted to the plan because they fail to 

take into account the plan’s provisions or the participant’s actual benefit 

entitlements. Affording prospective alternate payees access to plan 

and participant information in a timely manner will, in the view of the 

Department, help drafters avoid making such obvious errors in preparing 

orders and, thereby, facilitate plan administration. See Question 2-5. 

[ERISA §§ 206(d)(3)(A) - (C), 404(a); IRC § 414(p)(1) - (3)] 

Q

14
2-2: What are the duties of a plan administrator upon 

receipt of a domestic relations order by the plan?

Upon receipt of a domestic relations order, the plan administrator is 

required to promptly notify the affected participant and each alternate 

payee named in the order of the receipt of the order and to provide a copy 

of the plan’s procedures for determining whether a domestic relations 

order is a QDRO. Notification should be sent to the address included in 

the domestic relations order. 

The administrator is required to determine whether the order is a QDRO 

within a reasonable period of time after receipt of a domestic relations 

order and to promptly notify the participant and each alternate payee of 

such determination. See Question 2-10. 

[ERISA § 206(d)(3)(G)(i); IRC § 414(p)(6)(A)]

2-3: Is a plan required to have procedures for determining 

whether a domestic relations order is qualified?

Yes. Every retirement plan is required to establish written procedures 

for determining whether domestic relations orders are QDROs and for 

administering distributions under QDROs. 

[ERISA § 206(d)(3)(G)(ii); IRC § 414(p)(6)(B)]

2-4: What requirements must a plan’s QDRO procedures 

meet?

The QDRO procedures must: 

be in writing; 

be reasonable; 

m

m

Q

Q

Q

15
provide that each person specified in a domestic relations order 

received by the plan as entitled to payment of benefits under the 

plan will be notified (at the address specified in the domestic 

relations order) of the plan’s procedures for making QDRO 

determinations upon receipt of a domestic relations order, and 

permit an alternate payee to designate a representative for receipt of 

copies of notices and plan information that are sent to the alternate 

payee with respect to a domestic relations order. 

[ERISA § 206(d)(3)(G)(ii); IRC § 414(p)(6)] 

2-5: Are there other matters that should be addressed in 

a plan’s QDRO procedures?

Yes. It is the view of the Department of Labor that a plan’s QDRO 

procedures should be designed to ensure that QDRO determinations are 

made in a timely, efficient, and cost-effective manner, consistent with the 

administrator’s fiduciary duties under ERISA. The Department believes 

that unnecessary administrative burdens and costs attendant to QDRO 

determinations and administration can be avoided with clear explanations 

of the plan’s determination process, including: 

An explanation of the information about the plan and benefits that is 

available to assist prospective alternate payees in preparing QDROs, 

such as summary plan descriptions, plan documents, individual benefit 

and account statements, and any model QDROs developed for use by 

the plan (see Questions 2-1, 2-7); 

A description of any time limits set by the plan administrator for making 

determinations; 

A description of the steps the administrator will take to protect and 

preserve retirement assets or benefits upon receipt of a domestic 

relations order (for example, a description of when and under what 

m

m

m

m

Q

m

16
circumstances plan assets will be segregated or benefit payments will 

be delayed or suspended) (See Questions 2-12, 2-13) and 

A description of the process provided under the plan for obtaining a 

review of the administrator’s determination as to whether an order is 

a QDRO. 

It is the view of the Department that the plan administrator’s adoption and 

use of clear QDRO procedures, coupled with the administrator’s provision 

of information about the plan and benefits upon request, will significantly 

reduce the difficulty and expense of obtaining and administering QDROs 

by minimizing confusion and uncertainty about the process. 

[ERISA §§ 206(d)(3)(G), 206(d)(3)(H), 404(a); IRC §§ 414(p)(6), 

414(p)(7)]

2-6: May a plan administrator charge a participant or 

alternate payee for determining the qualified status 

of a domestic relations order?

The Department has taken the position that in the context of a defined 

contribution plan, an administrator may assess reasonable expenses 

attributable to a QDRO determination against the individual account of the 

participant who is a party to the domestic relations order. The documents of 

the plan should be reviewed to determine how plan expenses are allocated. 

[ERISA § 404(a); see Field Assistance Bulletin 2003-3 (see Appendix 

A)] 

2-7: May plan administrators provide parties with a model 

form or forms to assist in the preparation of a QDRO?

Yes. Although they are not required to do so, plan administrators may 

develop and make available “model” QDRO forms to assist in the 

m

Q

Q

17
preparation of a QDRO. Such model forms may make it easier for the 

parties to prepare a QDRO and reduce the time and expenses associated 

with a plan administrator’s determination of the qualified status of an 

order. Examples of sample language that may be included in such forms 

are provided in Appendix C. 

Plan administrators are required to honor any domestic relations order that 

satisfies the requirements to be a QDRO. In the view of the Department, 

therefore, a plan may not condition its determinations of QDRO status on 

the use of any particular form. 

2-8: In determining the qualified status of a domestic 

relations order, is the administrator required to 

determine the validity of the order under state 

domestic relations law?

No. A plan administrator is generally not required to determine whether 

the issuing court or agency had jurisdiction to issue an order, whether state 

law is correctly applied in the order, whether service was properly made on 

the parties, or whether an individual identified in an order as an alternate 

payee is in fact a spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of the 

participant under state law. 

[See Advisory Opinion 99-13A (Appendix A); Advisory Opinion 92-

17A (Appendix A)] 

2-9: Is a plan administrator required to reject a domestic 

relations order as defective if the order fails to 

specify factual identifying information that is easily 

obtainable by the plan administrator?

No. In many cases, an order that is submitted to a plan may clearly describe 

the identity and rights of the parties, but may be incomplete only with 

respect to factual identifying information within the plan administrator’s 

Q

Q

18
knowledge or easily obtained through a simple communication with the 

alternate payee or the participant. For example, an order may misstate 

the plan’s name or the names of participants or alternate payees, and the 

plan administrator can clearly determine the correct names, or an order 

may omit the addresses of participants or alternate payees, and the plan 

administrator’s records include this information. In such a case, the plan 

administrator should supplement the order with the appropriate identifying 

information, rather than rejecting the order as not qualified. 

[ERISA §§ 206(d)(3)(C), 206(d)(3)(I); IRC § 414(p)(2); 

see S. Rep. 575, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. at 20]

2-10: How long may the plan administrator take to 

determine whether a domestic relations order is a 

QDRO?

Plan administrators must determine whether a domestic relations order 

is a QDRO within a reasonable period of time after receiving the order. 

What is a reasonable period will depend on the specific circumstances. 

For example, a domestic relations order that is clear and complete when 

submitted should require less time to review than an order that is incomplete 

or unclear. See Question 2-12. 

Plans are required to adopt reasonable procedures for determining the 

qualified status of domestic relations orders. Compliance with such 

procedures should ensure that determinations of the qualified status of 

an order take place within a reasonable period of time. Procedures that 

unduly inhibit or hamper the QDRO determination process will not be 

considered reasonable procedures. See Question 2-4. 

[ERISA § 206(d)(3)(G)(i)(II); IRC § 414(p)(6)(A)(ii)]

Q

19
2-11: What must the plan administrator do during the 

determination process to protect against wrongly 

paying retirement benefits to the participant that 

would be paid to the alternate payee if the domestic 

relations order had been determined to be a QDRO?

During any period in which the issue of whether a domestic relations 

order is a QDRO is being determined (by a plan administrator, by a court 

of competent jurisdiction, or otherwise), ERISA requires that the plan 

administrator separately account for the amounts that would be payable 

to an alternate payee under the terms of the order during such period if the 

order had been determined to be qualified. These amounts are referred 

to as “segregated amounts.” During the period in which the status of 

a domestic relations order is being determined, the plan administrator 

must take steps to ensure that amounts that would have been payable to 

the alternate payee, if the order were a QDRO, are not distributed to the 

participant or any other person. 

The plan administrator’s duty to separately account for and to preserve 

the segregated amounts is limited in time. ERISA provides that the plan 

administrator must preserve the segregated amounts for not longer than 

the end of an “18-month period.” This “18-month period” does not begin 

until the first date (after the plan receives the order) that the order would 

require payment to the alternate payee. 

It is the view of the Department that, in order to ensure the availability of 

a full 18- month protection period, the 18 months cannot begin before the 

plan receives a domestic relations order. Rather, the “18-month period” 

will begin on the first date on which a payment would be required to be 

made under an order following receipt by the plan. See Questions 2-12 and 

2-13, which discuss how benefits should be treated when determinations 

on qualified status are made either before or after the beginning of the 

“18-month period.” 

[ERISA §§ 206(d)(3)(H), 404(a); IRC § 414(p)(7)]

Q

20
2-12: What are an administrator’s duties with respect to a 

domestic relations order received by the plan before 

the beginning of the “18-month period”?

As explained in Question 2-10, a plan administrator must determine 

whether a domestic relations order is a QDRO within a reasonable 

period following receipt. In the view of the Department, the “18-month 

period” during which a plan administrator must preserve the “segregated 

amounts” (see Question 2-11) is not the measure of the reasonable period 

for determining the qualified status of an order and in most cases would 

be an unreasonably long period of time to take to review an order. 

It is further the view of the Department that, during the determination 

period, the administrator, as a plan fiduciary, may not permit distributions 

to the participant or any other person of any amounts that would be payable 

to the alternate payee if the domestic relations order were determined to 

be a QDRO. If the domestic relations order is determined to be a QDRO 

before the first date on which benefits are payable to the alternate payee, 

the plan administrator has a continuing duty to account for and to protect 

the alternate payee’s interest in the plan to the same extent that the plan 

administrator is obliged to account for and to protect the interests of the 

plan’s participants. The plan administrator also has a fiduciary duty to 

pay out benefits in accordance with the terms of the QDRO. 

The Department understands that orders that are initially rejected by the 

plan administrator as not qualified are frequently revised and resubmitted 

within a short period of time. The Department also recognizes that in some 

instances plan administrators who reject an order may receive requests from 

participants for immediate distribution of benefits under circumstances 

that suggest that the rejected order is being revised and will shortly be 

resubmitted to the plan. In such circumstances, the plan administrator may 

be subject to conflicting claims for either paying the benefit or failing to 

Q

21
pay the benefit. The Department suggests that plan administrators may 

wish to consider the establishment of a process for providing preliminary 

or interim review of orders, and postponing final determinations for limited 

periods, to permit parties to correct defects within the 18-month segregation 

period. Such a process would reduce the likelihood of conflicting claims. 

[ERISA §§ 206(d)(3)(H), 404(a)]

2-13: What are an administrator’s duties with respect to a 

domestic relations order received on or after the date 

on which benefits would be payable to an alternate 

payee under the order?

Upon receipt of a domestic relations order, the administrator must 

separately account for and preserve the amounts that would be payable to 

an alternate payee until a determination is made with respect to the status 

of the order. See Questions 2-11, 2-12. If, within the “18-month period” 

-- beginning with the date (after receipt of the order by the plan) on which 

the first payment would be required to be made to an alternate payee under 

the order -- the plan administrator determines that the order is a QDRO, 

the plan administrator must pay the segregated amounts to the alternate 

payee in accordance with the terms of the QDRO. If, however, the plan 

administrator determines within the “18-month period” that the order is 

not a QDRO, or if the status of the order is not resolved by the end of the 

“18-month period,” the plan administrator must pay out the segregated 

amounts to the person or persons who would have been entitled to such 

amounts if there had been no order. If the order is later determined to be 

a QDRO, the order will apply only prospectively; that is, the alternate 

payee will be entitled only to amounts payable under the order after the 

subsequent determination. See Question 2-12. 

[ERISA §§ 206(d)(3)(H), 404(a); IRC § 414(p)(7); but see H.R. 

Conf. Rep. No. 841, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. II-858 (describing 

1986 amendments to the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, including 

clarification of the procedures to be followed during the 18-month 

segregation period for QDRO determinations)]

Q

22
2-14: What kind of notice is required to be provided by a plan 

administrator following a QDRO determination?

The plan administrator is required to notify the participant and each 

alternate payee of the administrator’s determination as to whether the 

order constitutes a QDRO. This notice should be in writing and furnished 

promptly following a determination. 

In the case of a determination that an order is not qualified, the notice should 

include the reasons for the rejection. It is the view of the Department that, 

in most instances where there has been a reasonable good faith effort to 

prepare a qualified domestic relations order, the parties will attempt to 

correct any deficiencies in the order and resubmit a corrected order for 

the plan administrator to review. The Department believes that, where a 

reasonable good faith effort has been made to draft a QDRO, prudent plan 

administration requires the plan administrator to furnish to the parties the 

information, advice, and guidance that is reasonably required to understand 

the reasons for a rejection, either as part of the notification process or 

otherwise, if such information, advice, and guidance could serve to reduce 

multiple submissions of deficient orders and therefore the burdens and 

costs to plans attendant on review of such orders. 

The notice of the plan administrator’s determination should be written 

in a manner that can be understood by the parties. Multiple submissions 

and unnecessary expenses may be avoided by clearly communicating in 

the rejection notice: 

the reasons why the order is not a QDRO; 

references to the plan provisions on which the plan administrator’s 

determination is based; 

an explanation of any time limits that apply to rights available to the 

parties under the plan (such as the duration of any protective actions 

the plan administrator will take); and 

m

m

m

Q

23
a description of any additional material, information, or modifications 

necessary for the order to be a QDRO and an explanation of why such 

material, information, or modifications are necessary.

[ERISA §§ 206(d)(3)(G)(i)(II), 206(d)(3)(I); IRC § 414(p)(6)(A)(ii)] 

2-15: What effect does an order that a plan administrator has 

determined to be a QDRO have on the administration 

of the plan?

The plan administrator must act in accordance with the provisions of the 

QDRO as if it were a part of the plan. In particular, if, under a plan, a 

participant has the right to elect the form in which benefits will be paid, and 

the QDRO gives the alternate payee that right, the plan administrator must 

permit the alternate payee to exercise that right under the circumstances 

and in accordance with the terms that would apply to the participant, as if 

the alternate payee were the participant. 

[ERISA §§ 206(d)(3)(A), 206(d)(3)(E)(i)(III); IRC §§ 401(a)(13)(B), 

414(p)(4)(A)(iii)]

2-16: What disclosure rights does an alternate payee have 

under a QDRO?

ERISA provides that a person who is an alternate payee under a QDRO 

generally shall be considered a beneficiary under the plan for purposes of 

ERISA. Accordingly, the alternate payee must be furnished, upon written 

request, copies of a variety of documents, including the latest summary 

plan description, the latest annual report, any final annual report, and the 

bargaining agreement, trust agreement, contract, or other instrument under 

which the plan is established or operated. The administrator may impose a 

reasonable charge to cover the cost of furnishing such copies. It is the view 

of the Department that, at such time as benefit payments to the alternate 

payee commence under the QDRO, the alternate payee must be treated as a 

“beneficiary receiving benefits under the plan” and automatically furnished 

m

Q

Q

24
the summary plan description, summaries of material plan changes, and 

the plan’s summary annual report. 

[ERISA §§ 104, 105, 206(d)(3)(J), 404(a); 29 CFR § 2520.104b-1 

et seq.]

2-17: What happens to the rights created by a QDRO if the plan 

to which the QDRO applies is amended, merged into 

another plan, or is maintained by a successor employer?

The rights of an alternate payee under a QDRO are protected in the event 

of plan amendments, a plan merger, or a change in the sponsor of the plan 

to the same extent that rights of participants or beneficiaries are protected 

with respect to benefits accrued as of the date of the event. 

[ERISA §§ 204(g), 206(d)(3)(A), 403(c)(1); IRC §§ 401(a)(13)(B), 

411(d)(6); see Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, Explanation 

of Technical Corrections to the Tax Reform Act of 1984 and Other 

Recent Tax Legislation, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (Comm. Print 1987) 

at 224]

2-18: What happens to the rights created by a QDRO if a plan 

is terminated?

In the view of the Department, the rights granted by a QDRO must be taken 

into account in the termination of a plan as if the terms of the QDRO were 

part of the plan. To the extent that the QDRO grants the alternate payee 

part of the participant’s benefits, the plan administrator, in terminating 

the plan, must provide the alternate payee with the notification, consent, 

payment, or other rights that it would have provided to the participant with 

respect to that portion of the participant’s benefits. 

[ERISA §§ 206(d)(3)(A), 403(d)]

Q

Q

25
2-19: What happens to the rights created by a QDRO if a 

defined benefit plan is terminated and the Pension 

Benefit Guaranty Corporation becomes trustee of the 

plan?

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is a Federal agency 

that insures pension benefits in most private-sector defined benefit pension 

plans. It is important to note that not all plans are insured by PBGC and not 

all plans that terminate become trusteed by PBGC. For example, defined 

contribution plans (including 401(k) plans) are generally not covered by 

PBGC’s insurance. In addition, most defined benefit plans that terminate 

have sufficient assets to pay all benefits. PBGC does not trustee these plans. 

See Question 3-4 for a discussion of these basic types of retirement plans.

When an insured plan terminates without enough money to pay all 

guaranteed benefits, PBGC becomes trustee of the terminating plan and 

pays the plan benefits subject to certain limits. For instance, PBGC does not 

pay certain death and supplemental benefits. In addition, benefit amounts 

and the forms of benefit PBGC pays are limited. PBGC has special rules 

that apply these guarantee limitations to QDROs. See PBGC’s booklet, 

Qualified Domestic Relations Orders & PBGC. 

For information about a specific domestic relations order or QDRO 

affecting a plan trusteed by PBGC, write to PBGC QDRO Coordinator, 

P.O. Box 151750, Alexandria, VA 22315-1750. For information about 

terminated pension plans that PBGC has trusteed, benefit information 

with respect to a participant in a PBGC-trusteed plan, or to request a copy 

of PBGC’s booklet, call PBGC’s Customer Service Center at 1-800-400-

PBGC (7242). The booklet is also available on PBGC’s Web site at www.

pbgc.gov.

Q

26
This chapter provides guidance for the process of drafting domestic relations orders that 

qualify as QDROs. The following areas are addressed: 

What are the most common and useful ways of dividing retirement benefits? 

What are survivor benefits, and why are they important? 

When can an alternate payee receive the benefits assigned by a QDRO? 

In what form will the alternate payee receive the assigned benefits? 

Although domestic relations orders that involve retirement plans are issued under and 

governed by state law, Federal law (ERISA and the Code) and the terms of the relevant 

retirement plan determine whether these orders can be QDROs. This chapter discusses 

how to draft orders that will qualify as QDROs while accomplishing the purposes for which 

the retirement benefits are being divided.

This chapter also discusses the most common methods of dividing retirement benefits under 

the two separate types of retirement plans: defined benefit plans and defined contribution 

plans. The following questions and answers emphasize the importance of understanding the 

nature of a participant’s retirement benefits and of making decisions about the assignment 

of any survivor benefits payable under the retirement plan. 

Chapter 3

Drafting QDROs

p

p

p

p

27
3-1: What is the best way to divide a participant’s retirement 

benefits in a QDRO?

There is no single “best” way to divide retirement benefits in a QDRO. 

What will be “best” in a specific case will depend on many factors, 

including the type of retirement plan, the nature of the participant’s 

retirement benefits, and why the parties are seeking to divide those benefits. 

In deciding how to divide a participant’s retirement benefits in a QDRO, 

it is also important to consider two aspects of a participant’s retirement 

benefits: the benefit payable under the plan directly to the participant for 

retirement purposes (referred to here as the “retirement benefit”), and any 

benefit that is payable under the plan on behalf of the participant to someone 

else after the participant dies (referred to here as the “survivor benefit”). 

These two aspects of a participant’s retirement benefits are discussed 

separately in this booklet only in order to emphasize the importance of 

considering how best to divide retirement benefits. 

The following four questions and answers introduce the basic concepts that 

should inform decisions about drafting QDROs. Question 3-2 explains the 

scope of assignment permitted by the QDRO provisions; Questions 3-3 

and 3-4 relate primarily to the retirement benefit; Question 3-5 describes 

survivor benefits. Later questions present more specific information about 

how to draft QDROs. 

Q

28
3-2: How much can be given to an alternate payee through 

a QDRO?

A QDRO can give an alternate payee any part or all of the retirement 

benefits payable with respect to a participant under a retirement plan. 

However, the QDRO cannot require the plan to provide increased benefits 

(determined on the basis of actuarial value); nor can a QDRO require a plan 

to provide a type or form of benefit, or any option, not otherwise provided 

under the plan (with one exception, described in Questions 3-9 and 3-10, for 

an alternate payee’s right to receive payment at the participant’s “earliest 

retirement age”). The QDRO also cannot require the payment of benefits 

to an alternate payee that are required to be paid to another alternate payee 

under another QDRO already recognized by the plan. 

[ERISA §§ 206(d)(3)(B)(i)(I), 206(d)(3)(D), 206(d)(3)(E); IRC §§ 

414(p)(1)(A)(i), 414(p)(3), 414(p)(4); Advisory Opinion 2000-09A 

(see Appendix A)] 

3-3: Why are the reasons for dividing the retirement benefits 

important? 

Generally, QDROs are used either to provide support payments (temporary 

or permanent) to the alternate payee (who may be the spouse, former spouse 

or a child or other dependent of the participant) or to divide marital property 

in the course of dissolving a marriage. These differing goals often result in 

different choices in drafting a QDRO. This answer describes two common 

different approaches in drafting QDROs for these two different purposes. 

One approach that is used in some orders is to “split” the actual benefit 

payments made with respect to a participant under the plan to give the 

alternate payee part of each payment. This approach to dividing retirement 

benefits is often called the “shared payment” approach. Under this 

Q

Q

29
approach, the alternate payee will not receive any payments unless the 

participant receives a payment or is already in pay status. This approach 

is often used when a support order is being drafted after a participant has 

already begun to receive a stream of payments from the plan (such as a 

life annuity). 

An order providing for shared payments, like any other QDRO, must 

specify the amount or percentage of the participant’s benefit payments that 

is assigned to the alternate payee (or the manner in which such amount 

or percentage is to be determined). It must also specify the number of 

payments or period to which it applies. This is particularly important in 

the shared payment QDRO, which must specify when the alternate payee’s 

right to share the payments begins and ends. For example, when a state 

authority seeks to provide support to a child of a participant, an order might 

require payments to the alternate payee to begin as soon as possible after 

the order is determined to be a QDRO and to continue until the alternate 

payee reaches maturity. Alternatively, when support is being provided to 

a former spouse, the order might state that payments to the alternate payee 

will end when the former spouse remarries. If payments are to end upon 

the occurrence of an event, notice and reasonable substantiation that the 

event has occurred must be provided for the plan to be able to comply with 

the terms of the QDRO. 

Orders that seek to divide a retirement benefit as part of the marital property 

upon divorce or legal separation often take a different approach to dividing 

the retirement benefit. These orders usually divide the participant’s 

retirement benefit (rather than just the payments) into two separate portions 

with the intent of giving the alternate payee a separate right to receive a 

portion of the retirement benefit to be paid at a time and in a form different 

from that chosen by the participant. This approach to dividing a retirement 

benefit is often called the “separate interest” approach. 

30
An order that provides for a separate interest for the alternate payee must 

specify the amount or percentage of the participant’s retirement benefit to 

be assigned to the alternate payee (or the manner in which such amount or 

percentage is to be determined). The order must also specify the number 

of payments or period to which it applies, and such orders often satisfy 

this requirement simply by giving the alternate payee the right that the 

participant would have had under the plan to elect the form of benefit 

payment and the time at which the separate interest will be paid. Such an 

order would satisfy the requirements to be a QDRO. 

Federal law does not require the use of either approach for any specific 

domestic relations purpose, and it is up to the drafters of any order to 

determine how best to achieve the purposes for which retirement benefits 

are being divided. Further, the shared payment approach and the separate 

interest approach can each be used for either defined benefit or defined 

contribution plans. See Question 3-4 for a discussion of the two basic 

types of retirement plans. However, it is important in drafting any order to 

understand and follow the terms of the plan. An order that would require 

a plan to provide increased benefits (determined on an actuarial basis) or 

to provide a type or form of benefit, or an option, not otherwise available 

under the plan cannot be a QDRO. See Questions 3-4, 3-6, and 3-7 for 

further information on dividing retirement benefits under defined benefit 

and defined contribution plans. 

In addition to determining whether or how to divide the retirement benefit, 

it is important to consider whether or not to give the alternate payee a right 

to survivor benefits or any other benefits payable under the plan. See 

Question 3-5 for a discussion of survivor benefits. 

[ERISA § 206(d)(3)(C)(ii) - (iv); IRC § 414(p)(2)(B) - (D)] 

31
3-4: In deciding how to divide the participant’s retirement 

benefits, why is understanding the type of retirement 

plan important?

Understanding the type of retirement plan is important because the order 

cannot be a QDRO unless its assignment of rights or division of retirement 

benefits complies with the terms of the plan. Parties drafting a QDRO 

should read the plan’s summary plan description and other plan documents 

to understand what retirement benefits are provided under the plan. 

Retirement plans may be divided generally into two types: defined benefit 

plans and defined contribution plans.

A defined benefit plan promises to pay each participant a specific benefit 

at retirement. This basic retirement benefit is usually based on a formula 

that takes into account factors like the number of years a participant works 

for the employer and the participant’s salary. The basic retirement benefit 

is generally provided in the form of periodic payments for the participant’s 

life beginning at what the plan calls “normal retirement age.” This stream 

of periodic payments is generally known as an “annuity.” A participant’s 

basic retirement benefit under a defined benefit plan may increase over 

time, either before or after the participant begins receiving benefits, due 

to a variety of circumstances, such as increases in salary or the crediting 

of additional years of service with the employer (which are taken into 

account under the plan’s benefit formula), or through amendment to the 

plan’s provisions, including some amendments to provide cost of living 

adjustments. 

Defined benefit plans may promise to pay benefits at various times, under 

certain circumstances, or in alternative forms. Benefits paid at those 

times or in those forms may have a greater actuarial value than the basic 

retirement benefit payable by the plan at the participant’s normal retirement 

age. When one form of benefit has a greater actuarial value than another 

32

Q
form, the difference in value is often called a “subsidy.” See Appendix C 

for further discussion of the benefits provided under defined benefit plans. 

A defined contribution plan, by contrast, is a type of retirement plan that 

provides for an individual account for each participant. The participant’s 

benefits are based solely on the amount contributed to the participant’s 

account and any income, expenses, gains or losses, and any forfeitures of 

accounts of other participants that may be allocated to such participant’s 

account. Examples of defined contribution plans include profit sharing 

plans (like 401(k) plans), employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs), and 

money purchase plans. A participant’s basic retirement benefit in a defined 

contribution plan is the amount in his or her account at any given time. 

This is generally known as the participant’s “account balance.” Defined 

contribution plans commonly provide for retirement benefits to be paid 

in the form of a lump sum payment of the participant’s entire account 

balance. Defined contribution plans by their nature do not offer subsidies. 

It should be noted, however, that some defined benefit plans provide for 

lump sum payments, and some defined contribution plans provide for 

annuities. 

[IRS Notice 97-11, 1997-2 IRB 49 (Jan. 13, 1997) (Appendix C)]

3-5: What are “survivor benefits,” and why should a QDRO 

take them into account?

Federal law requires all retirement plans, whether they are defined benefit 

plans or defined contribution plans, to provide benefits in a way that 

includes a survivor benefit for the participant’s spouse. The provisions 

creating these protections are contained in section 205 of ERISA and 

sections 401(a)(11) and 417 of the Code. The type of survivor benefit that 

is required by Federal law depends on the type of retirement plan. Plans 

also may provide for survivor (or “death”) benefits that are in addition to 

those required by Federal law. Participants and alternate payees drafting 

Q

33
a QDRO should read the plan’s summary plan description and other plan 

documents to understand the survivor benefits available under the plan. 

Federal law generally requires that defined benefit plans and certain 

defined contribution plans pay retirement benefits to participants who 

were married on the participant’s “annuity starting date” (this is the first 

day of the first period for which an amount is payable to the participant) 

in a special form called a “qualified joint and survivor annuity” (QJSA) 

unless the participant elects a different form and the spouse consents to 

that election. When benefits are paid as a QJSA, the participant receives a 

periodic payment (usually monthly) during his or her life, and the surviving 

spouse of the participant receives a periodic payment for the rest of the 

surviving spouse’s life upon the participant’s death. See Appendix C for 

a description of the QJSA. Federal law also generally requires that, if a 

married participant with a non-forfeitable benefit under one of these types 

of plans dies before his or her “annuity starting date,” the plan must pay 

the surviving spouse of the participant a monthly survivor benefit. This 

benefit is called a “qualified preretirement survivor annuity” (QPSA). 

Appendix C also describes the QPSA. 

Those defined contribution plans that are not required to pay retirement 

benefits to married participants in the form of a QJSA or QPSA (like most 

401(k) plans) are required by Federal law to pay any balance remaining 

in the participant’s account after the participant dies to the participant’s 

surviving spouse. If the spouse gives written consent, the participant 

can direct that upon the participant’s death any balance remaining in the 

account will be paid to a beneficiary other than the spouse, for example, the 

couple’s children. Under these defined contribution plans, Federal law does 

not require a spouse’s consent to a participant’s decision to withdraw any 

portion (or all) of his or her account balance during the participant’s life. 

If a participant and his or her spouse become divorced before the 

participant’s annuity starting date, the divorced spouse loses all right to 

34
the survivor benefit protections that Federal law requires be provided to a 

participant’s spouse. If the divorced participant remarries, the participant’s 

new spouse may acquire a right to the Federally mandated survivor benefits. 

A QDRO, however, may change that result. To the extent that a QDRO 

requires that a former spouse be treated as the participant’s surviving spouse 

for all or any part of the survivor benefits payable after the death of the 

participant, any subsequent spouse of the participant cannot be treated as 

the participant’s surviving spouse. For example, if a QDRO awards all of 

the survivor benefit rights to a former spouse, and the participant remarries, 

the participant’s new spouse will not receive any survivor benefit upon the 

participant’s death. If such a QDRO requires that a defined benefit plan, or 

a defined contribution plan subject to the QJSA and QPSA requirements, 

treat a former spouse of a participant as the participant’s surviving spouse, 

the plan must pay the participant’s benefit in the form of a QJSA or QPSA 

unless the former spouse who was named as surviving spouse in the QDRO 

consents to the participant’s election of a different form of payment. 

It should also be noted that some retirement plans provide that a spouse 

of a participant will not be treated as married unless he or she has been 

married to the participant for at least a year. If the retirement plan to which 

the QDRO relates contains such a one-year marriage requirement, then 

the QDRO cannot treat the alternate payee as a surviving spouse if the 

marriage lasted for less than one year. 

In addition, it is important to note that some retirement plans may provide 

for survivor benefits in addition to those required by Federal law for the 

benefit of the surviving spouse. Generally, however, the only way to 

establish a former spouse’s right to survivor benefits such as a QJSA or 

QPSA is through a QDRO. A QDRO may provide that a part or all of such 

other survivor benefits shall be paid to an alternate payee rather than to 

the person who would otherwise be entitled to receive such death benefits 

under the plan. As discussed above (see, e.g., Question 3-3), a spouse or 

35
former spouse can also receive a right to receive (as a separate interest or 

as shared payments) part of the participant’s retirement benefit as well as 

a survivor’s benefit. 

[ERISA §§ 205, 206(d)(3)(F); IRC §§ 401(a)(11), 414(p)(5), 417; 

Advisory Opinion 2000-09A (see Appendix A)]

3-6: How may the participant’s retirement benefit be divided 

if the retirement plan is a defined contribution plan? 

An order dividing a retirement benefit under a defined contribution plan 

may adopt either a “separate interest” approach or a “shared payment” 

approach (or some combination of these approaches). See Question 3-3 

for a discussion of these two approaches. Orders that provide the alternate 

payee with a separate interest, either by assigning to the alternate payee 

a percentage or a dollar amount of the account balance as of a certain 

date, often also provide that the separate interest will be held in a separate 

account under the plan with respect to which the alternate payee is entitled 

to exercise the rights of a participant. Provided that the order does not 

assign a right or option to an alternate payee that is not otherwise available 

under the plan, an order that creates a separate account for the alternate 

payee may qualify as a QDRO. 

Orders that provide for shared payments from a defined contribution plan 

should clearly establish the amount or percentage of the participant’s 

payments that will be allocated to the alternate payee and the number of 

payments or period of time during which the allocation to the alternate 

payee is to be made. A QDRO can specify that any or all payments made 

to the participant are to be shared between the participant and the alternate 

payee. 

In drafting orders dividing benefits under defined contribution plans, 

parties should also consider addressing the possibility of contingencies 

Q

36
occurring that may affect the account balance (and therefore the alternate 

payee’s share) during the determination period. For example, parties 

might be well advised to specify the source of the alternate payee’s share 

of a participant’s account that is invested in multiple investments because 

there may be different methods of determining how to derive the alternate 

payee’s share that would affect the value of that share. The parties should 

also consider how to allocate any income or losses attributable to the 

participant’s account that may accrue during the determination period. If 

an order allocates a specific dollar amount rather than a percentage to an 

alternate payee as a shared payment, the order should address the possibility 

that the participant’s account balance or individual payments might be less 

than the specified dollar amount when actually paid out. 

[ERISA §§ 206(d)(3)(C); IRC § 414(p)(2)]

3-7: How may the participant’s retirement benefit be divided 

if the retirement plan is a defined benefit plan?

As indicated earlier, an order may adopt either the shared payment or 

the separate interest approach (or a combination of the two) in dividing 

retirement benefits in a defined benefit plan. See Question 3-3 for a 

discussion of these two approaches. 

If shared payments are desired, the order should specify the amount of 

each shared payment allocated to the alternate payee either by percentage 

or by dollar amount. If the order describes the alternate payee’s share as 

a dollar amount, care should be taken to establish that the payments to the 

participant will be sufficient to satisfy the allocation, and the order should 

indicate what is to happen in the event a payment is insufficient to satisfy 

the allocation. The order must also describe the number of payments or 

period of time during which the allocation to the alternate payee is to be 

made. This is usually done by specifying a beginning date and an ending 

Q

37
date (or an event that will cause the allocation to begin and/or end). If 

an order specifies a triggering event that may occur outside the plan’s 

knowledge, notice of its occurrence must be given to the plan before the 

plan is required to act in accordance with the order. If the intent is that all 

payments made under the plan are to be shared between the participant 

and the alternate payee, the order may so specify. 

As discussed in Appendix Cat pages 100-101, a defined benefit plan may 

provide for subsidies under certain circumstances and may also provide 

increased benefits or additional benefits either earned through additional 

service or provided by way of plan amendment. A QDRO that uses the 

“shared payment” method to give the alternate payee a percentage of each 

payment may be structured to take into account any such future increases 

in the benefits paid to the participant. Such a QDRO does not need to 

address the treatment of future subsidies or other benefit increases, because 

the alternate payee will automatically receive a share of any subsidy or 

other benefit increases that are paid to the participant. If the parties do not 

wish to provide for the sharing of such subsidies or increases, the order 

should so specify. 

If a separate interest is desired for the alternate payee, it is important that 

the order be based on adequate information from the plan administrator and 

the plan documents concerning the participant’s retirement benefit and the 

rights, options, and features provided under the plan. See Question 2-1. In 

particular, the drafters of a QDRO should consider any subsidies or future 

benefit increases that might be available with respect to the participant’s 

retirement benefit. The order may specify whether, and to what extent, 

an alternate payee is to receive such subsidies or future benefit increases. 

See Appendix Cat pages 100-101 for a discussion of subsidies and possible 

future increases in a participant’s benefits in a defined benefit plan. 

[ERISA §§ 206(d)(3)(C), 206(d)(3)(D); IRC §§ 414(p)(2), 414(p)(3)]

38
3-8: May the QDRO specify the form in which the alternate 

payee’s benefits will be paid?

A QDRO that provides for a separate interest may specify the form in 

which the alternate payee’s benefits will be paid subject to the following 

limitations: (1) the order may not provide the alternate payee with a type 

or form of payment, or any option, not otherwise provided under the plan; 

(2) the order may not provide any subsequent spouse of an alternate payee 

with the survivor benefit rights that Federal law requires be provided to 

spouses of participants under section 205 of ERISA (see Question 3-5); 

and (3) (for any tax-qualified retirement plan), the payment of the alternate 

payee’s benefits must satisfy the requirements of section 401(a)(9) of 

the Code respecting the timing and duration of payment of benefits. In 

determining the form of payment for an alternate payee, an order may 

substitute the alternate payee’s life for the life of the participant to the 

extent that the form of payment is based on the duration of an individual’s 

life. As discussed in Appendix C at pages 102-103, however, the timing 

and forms of benefit available to an alternate payee under a tax-qualified 

plan may be limited by section 401(a)(9) of the Code. 

Alternatively, a QDRO may (subject to the limitations described above) 

give the alternate payee the right that the participant would have had under 

the plan to elect the form of benefit payment. For example, if a participant 

would have the right to elect a life annuity, the alternate payee may exercise 

that right and choose to have the assigned benefit paid over the alternate 

payee’s life. However, the QDRO must permit the plan to determine the 

amount payable to the alternate payee under any form of payment in a 

manner that does not require the plan to pay increased benefits (determined 

on an actuarial basis). 

A plan may by its own terms provide alternate payees with additional types 

or forms of benefit, or options, not otherwise provided to participants, 

such as a lump-sum payment option, but the plan cannot prevent a QDRO 

from assigning to an alternate payee any type or form of benefit, or option, 

provided generally under the plan to the participant. 

39

Q
[ERISA §§ 206(d)(3)(A), 206(d)(3)(D), 206(d)(3)(E)(i)(III); IRC §§ 

401(a)(9), 401(a)(13)(B), 414(p)(3), 414(p)(4)(A)(iii)]

3-9: When can the alternate payee get the benefits assigned 

under a QDRO?

A QDRO that provides for shared payments must specify the date on which 

the alternate payee will begin to share the participant’s payments. Such a 

date, however, cannot be earlier than the date on which the plan receives 

the order. With respect to a separate interest, an order may either specify 

the time (after the order is received by the plan) at which the alternate 

payee will receive the separate interest or assign to the alternate payee 

the same right the participant would have had under the plan with regard 

to the timing of payment. In either case, a QDRO cannot provide that an 

alternate payee will receive a benefit earlier than the date on which the 

participant reaches his or her “earliest retirement age,” unless the plan 

permits payments at an earlier date. Question 3-10 describes how to 

determine this “earliest retirement age,” which is often a date earlier than 

the earliest date on which the participant would be entitled to receive his 

or her retirement benefit. 

The plan itself may contain provisions permitting alternate payees to 

receive separate interests awarded under a QDRO at an earlier time or 

under different circumstances than the participant could receive the benefit. 

For example, a plan may provide that alternate payees may elect to receive 

a lump sum payment of a separate interest at any time. As discussed 

in question 3-8 and in Appendix C at pages 102-103, section 401(a)(9) 

of the Code may affect when benefits must be paid under tax-qualified 

retirement plans. 

[ERISA §§ 206(d)(3)(C), 206(d)(3)(D), 206(d)(3)(E); IRC §§ 401(a)

(9), 414(p)(2), 414(p)(3), 414(p)(4)]

40
m

m

l

l

Q 3-10: What is “earliest retirement age,” and why is it 

important?

For QDROs, Federal law provides a very specific definition of “earliest 

retirement age,” which is the earliest date as of which a QDRO can order 

payment to an alternate payee (unless the plan permits payments at an 

earlier date). The “earliest retirement age” applicable to a QDRO depends 

on the terms of the retirement plan and the participant’s age. “Earliest 

retirement age” is the earlier of two dates: 

the date on which the participant is entitled to receive a distribution 

under the plan, or 

the later of either: 

the date the participant reaches age 50, or 

the earliest date on which the participant could begin receiving 

benefits under the plan if the participant separated from service 

with the employer. 

Drafters of QDROs should consult the plan administrator and the plan 

documents for information on the plan’s “earliest retirement age.” The 

following examples illustrate the concept of “earliest retirement age.” 

Example 1. The retirement plan is a defined contribution plan that permits 

a participant to make withdrawals only when he or she reaches age 591⁄2 or 

terminates from service. The “earliest retirement age” for a QDRO under 

this plan: is the earlier of (1) when the participant actually terminates 

employment or reaches age 591⁄2, or (2) the later of the date the participant 

reaches age 50 or the date the participant could receive the account balance 

if the participant terminated employment. Since the participant could 

terminate employment at any time and thereby be able to receive the 

41
42

account balance under the plan’s terms, the later of the two dates described 

above is “age 50.” The “earliest retirement age” formula for this plan 

can be simplified to read the earlier of: (1) actually reaching age 591⁄2 or 

terminating employment or (2) age 50 Since age 50 is earlier than age 

591⁄2, the “earliest retirement age” for this plan will be the earlier of age 

50 or the date the participant actually terminates from service. 

Example 2. The retirement plan is a defined benefit plan that permits 

retirement benefits to be paid beginning when the participant reaches 

age 65 and terminates employment. It does not permit earlier payments. 

The “earliest retirement age” for this plan is: the earlier of (1) the date on 

which the participant actually reaches age 65 and terminates employment, 

or (2) the later of age 50 or the date on which the participant reaches age 

65 (whether he or she terminates employment or not). Because age 65 is 

later than age 50, the second part of the formula can be simplified to read 

“age 65” so that the formula reads as follows: the “earliest retirement age” 

is the earlier of (1) the date on which the participant reaches age 65 and 

actually terminates or (2) the date the participant reaches age 65. Under 

this plan, therefore, the “earliest retirement age” will be the date on which 

the participant reaches age 65. 

[ERISA § 206(d)(3)(E); IRC § 414(p)(4)]
Appendix A

Department of Labor

Interpretive Guidance
December 4, 1990

Ms. Ellen O. Pfaff AO 90-46A

Lane Powell Moss & Miller ERISA SEC. 514, 206(d)

3800 Rainier Bank Tower

Seattle, Washington 98101-2647

Dear Ms. Pfaff:

This responds to your request for an advisory opinion, on behalf of the trustee of the 

Bruce A. Nordstrom Self-Employed Retirement Plan (Plan), concerning the application of 

sections 514 and 206(d) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) with 

respect to the court order described below.1 Your submission contains the following facts and 

representations.

The Plan is a tax-qualified retirement plan2 under which benefits are payable upon 

the participant’s retirement or death. The Plan provides that benefits may not be assigned or 

alienated except in the case of a “qualified domestic relations order.” Bruce A. Nordstrom is a 

Plan participant whose benefit account is not in pay status.

Bruce Nordstrom’s wife, Frances W. Nordstrom, died October 5, 1984. Her will was 

admitted to probate in the superior court for the State of Washington at King County (the Court). 

Subsequently, the estate of Frances Nordstrom (the Estate) filed a petition asking the Court 

to require the Plan to divide and segregate that portion of Bruce Nordstrom’s benefits which 

represents the interest of the Estate. You indicate the request was made on the grounds that, 

inter alia, Frances Nordstrom owned at her death an undivided one-half community interest 

in Bruce Nordstrom’s accrued benefits pursuant to the community property law of the State of 

Washington and that a court order for such division and segregation of benefits could issue in 

accordance with section 206(d)(3) of ERISA. The Court granted the petition and entered an order 

styled “Qualified Domestic Relations Order and Order Dividing Retirement Plan Benefits” (the 

Court Order).

You request the views of the Department of Labor concerning whether the community 

property law of the State of Washington is preempted by section 514 of ERISA and whether 

the Court Order falls within the scope of section 206(d)(3) of ERISA. Section 514(a) of ERISA 

generally preempts all state laws insofar as they relate to employee benefit plans covered by 

title I of ERISA. Therefore, a state community property law that considers the pension earned 

by a married spouse to be community property is preempted under this provision, unless some 

exception applies.

1

For convenience, this letter refers to the provisions of section 206(d) of ERISA rather than to the corresponding provisions 

in sections 401(a)(13)(B) and 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code, to which your request refers.

2

You indicated in a telephone conversation with a representative of this Office that the plan has a number of participants and 

is covered by title I of ERISA.

Appendix A 44
Section 514(b) of ERISA specifies certain exceptions from the broad preemptive effect 

of section 514(a). Of those exceptions, only that provided by section 514(b)(7) has relevance to 

community property laws. Section 514(b)(7) states that preemption under section 514(a) does 

not apply to “qualified domestic relations orders” within the meaning of ERISA section 206(d)

(3)(B)(i).

Section 206(d)(1) of ERISA generally requires pension plans covered by title I of ERISA 

to provide that plan benefits may not be assigned or alienated. Section 206(d)(3)(A) of ERISA 

states that section 206(d)(1) applies to an assignment or alienation of benefits pursuant to a 

“domestic relations order,” unless the order is determined to be a “qualified domestic relations 

order” (QDRO). Section 206(d)(3)(A) further provides that pension plans must provide for 

payment of benefits in accordance with the applicable requirements of any QDRO.

Section 206(d)(3)(B) of ERISA defines the terms “qualified domestic relations order” and 

“domestic relations order” for purposes of section 206(d)(3) as follows:

For purposes of [section 206(d)(3)] — 

(i) the term “qualified domestic relations order” means a domestic 

relations order— 

(I) which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate 

payee’s right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, 

receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a 

participant under a plan, and 

(II) with respect to which the requirements of subparagraphs (C) 

and (D) are met, and

(ii) the term “domestic relations order” means any judgment, decree, 

or order (including approval of a property settlement agreement)

which —

(I) relates to the provision of child support, alimony payments, 

or marital property rights to a spouse, former spouse, child, or 

other dependent of a participant, and 

(I) is made pursuant to a State domestic relations law (including 

a community property law) (emphasis added) 

The term “alternate payee” is defined by ERISA section 206(d)(3)(K) to mean “any spouse, 

former spouse, child, or other dependent of a participant who is recognized by a domestic 

-2-

45 Appendix A
relations order as having a right to receive all, or a portion of, the benefits payable under a plan 

with respect to such participant.”

Sections 514(b)(7) and 206(d)(3) of ERISA were enacted as part of the Retirement Equity 

Act of 1984 (REA), which aimed primarily at assuring greater and more equitable opportunity 

for women working as employees or homemakers to receive private pension income. The 

legislative history of the QDRO provisions of REA contains numerous statements indicating that 

Congress was focusing on the division of pension benefits in marital dissolution or dependent 

support situations. For example, Congressman William Clay described the QDRO provisions 

during a House floor debate on the legislation as follows:

Finally, women may be denied their rights to pension benefits by 

the dissolution of a marriage by divorce, regardless of how many years she 

served as an economic partner to a man covered by a pension plan. Even in 

cases in which the State domestic relations court is willing to consider the 

pension an asset of the marriage and award the ex-wife a share of it, her rights 

have been thwarted. Pension plans have refused to honor those court orders 

claiming that they required an impermissible assignment of benefits and were 

preempted by ERISA.

H.R. 4280 makes it clear that honoring a legitimate State court order 

awarding an ex-spouse some or all of a worker’s pension does not violate 

the antiassignment clause of ERISA. In addition, the legislation creates an 

exception from ERISA’s broad preemption of State laws for qualified domestic 

relations orders.3

Moreover, the report of the Senate Committee on Finance made specific mention of 

state community property laws in observing that “[s]everal cases have arisen in which courts 

have been required to determine whether the ERISA preemption and spendthrift provisions 

apply to family support obligations (e.g. alimony, separate maintenance, and child support 

obligations)”.4

 The report noted “[t]here is a divergence of opinion among the courts as to 

whether ERISA preempts State community property laws insofar as they relate to the rights of a 

married couple to benefits under a pension, etc, plan,” 5

 and cited two cases in which application 

of state community property law to pension benefits was at issue in the context of marital 

dissolution proceedings.6

3

130 Cong. Rec. 13327 (1984).

4

S. Rep. No 575, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 18 (1984).

5

Id. 19.

6

The cases cited were Stone v. Stone, 632 F. 2d 740 (9th Cir. 1980) and Francis v. United Technology Corp., 458 

F. Supp. 84 (N.D. Cal. 1978).

-3-

Appendix A 46
It thus appears Congress generally intended that the QDRO provisions of ERISA would 

have application in those court proceedings conducted primarily to resolve domestic relations 

issues. With respect to ERISA section 206(d)(3)(B)(ii)(II), it is the view of the Department of 

Labor that Congress intended the QDRO provisions to encompass state community property 

laws only insofar as such laws would ordinarily be recognized by courts in determining alimony, 

property settlement and similar orders issued in domestic relations proceedings. We find no 

indication Congress contemplated that the QDRO provisions would serve as a mechanism 

in which a non-participant spouse’s interest derived only from state property law could be 

enforced against a pension plan.

In the case at hand, the Court Order was issued in a probate proceeding and would 

recognize an interest in pension benefits of the surviving spouse solely on the basis of the state 

community property law. Consistent with the views discussed above, it is the opinion of the 

Department of Labor that the Court Order is not a “domestic relations order” within the meaning 

of section 206(d)(3)(B)(ii) of ERISA and, therefore, does not constitute a QDRO for purposes of 

sections 206(d)(3) and 514(b)(7) of ERISA. Accordingly, it is the opinion of the Department of 

Labor that the Court Order is unenforceable against the Plan.

This letter constitutes an advisory opinion under ERISA Procedure 76-1. Section 10 of 

the procedure explains the effect of advisory opinions.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Doyle

Director of Regulations 

and Interpretations

-4-

47 Appendix A
U.S. Department of Labor Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration

Washington, D.C. 20210

AUG 21 1992 92-17A

Sec. 206(d)(3)

Ms. Ann E. Neydon

Sachs, Kadushin, O'Hare

Helveston & Waldman, P.C.

1000 Farmer

Detroit, Michigan 48226

Dear Ms. Neydon:

The Internal Revenue Service has referred to us your request for an advisory opinion on behalf of the Cement 

Masons' Pension Trust Fund (the Plan) concerning the application of the "qualified domestic relations order" 

(QDRO) exception to the anti-assignment and alienation rules contained in section 206(d)(3) of Title I of the 

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and sections 401(a)(13)(B) and 414(p) of the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code), to an order from the Circuit Court for the County of Wayne, Michigan. Your 

submission contains the following facts and representations.

The Plan is qualified under section 401(a) of the Code. The Plan has received a proposed Qualified Domestic 

Relations Order (the Order) in connection with a domestic relations proceeding in the Circuit Court for the County 

of Wayne in the State of Michigan. The Order states that X is a Plan participant whose benefit account is not in pay 

status. As a result of such proceeding, a property division was entered into between X and Y. The property division 

was executed prior to, and is referenced in, the Order.

According to the terms of the Order, which you enclosed with your letter, the Court approved the property division 

prior to granting an annulment ab initio of the marriage between the parties. You represent that, at the time of the 

property division and before the annulment, the parties had been married for 38 years and the marriage had produced 

six children. Under the Order, and pursuant to the terms of the property division, Y is designated as the "alternate 

payee" assigned 50% of the participant's accrued benefit as of the date of the Order. The Order further designates Y 

as the surviving spouse of X. You indicate that Michigan domestic relations law provides for the division of 

property and the entry of such an order upon the annulment of a marriage.1

You request an opinion as to whether a state court correctly ruled that a party to an annulled marriage (1) is a 

“former spouse” of a participant for purposes of the definition of "alternate payee" in section 206(d)(3)(K) of 

ERISA, and (2) is designated as a "surviving spouse" pursuant to section 206(d)(3)(F) of ERISA for purposes of the 

joint and survivor and pre-retirement annuity provisions. In essence, you are requesting an opinion on whether the 

plan administrator is required to review such rulings as part of the process of determining whether a domestic 

relations order is qualified under section 206(d)(3) of ERISA.

1 Section 552.19 of the Michigan statute states that "upon the annulment of a marriage, a divorce from the bonds of 

matrimony or a judgment of separate maintenance, the court may make a further judgment for restoring to either 

party the whole, or such parts as it shall deem just and reasonable, of the real and personal estate that shall have 

come to either party by reason of the marriage, or for awarding to either party the value thereof, to be paid by either 

party in money." (MCLA 552.19)

Appendix A 48
2 

Under the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, as amended (REA), the Secretary of Labor has authority to issue 

regulations interpreting the QDRO provisions in section 206(d)(3) of ERISA, as well as the parallel provisions in 

sections 401(a)(13)(B) and 414(p) of the Code. To date, the Department has not issued regulations interpreting these 

provisions. Because your inquiry presents issues on which the answer seems to be clear from the application of these 

statutory provisions to the facts described, the Department has determined, in accordance with section 5.03 of 

ERISA Procedure 76-1, 41 Fed. Reg. 36281 (Aug. 27, 1976), that it is appropriate to issue an advisory opinion in 

this case. For convenience, references to Code sections that parallel provisions of Title I of ERISA are omitted from 

the following discussion, but may be assumed to be incorporated by reference when the parallel section in Title I of 

ERISA is cited.

Section 206(d)(1) of ERISA generally requires pension plans covered by Title I to provide that plan benefits may 

not be assigned or alienated. Section 206(d)(3)(A) of ERISA states that section 206(d)(1) applies to an assignment 

or alienation of benefits pursuant to a "domestic relations order," unless the order is determined to be a QDRO. 

Section 206(d)(3)(A) further provides that pension plans must provide for payment of benefits in accordance with 

the applicable requirements of any QDRO.

Section 206(d)(3)(B) of ERISA defines the terms "qualified domestic relations order" and "domestic relations order" 

as follows:

(B) For purposes of [section 206(d)(3)]--

(i) the term "qualified domestic relations order" means a domestic relations order--

(I) which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to 

an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect 

to a participant under the plan, and

(II) with respect to which the requirements of subparagraphs (C) and (D) are met, and

(ii) the term "domestic relations order" means any judgement, decree, or order (including approval 

of a property settlement agreement) which--

(I) relates to the provision of child support, alimony payments, or marital property rights 

to a spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of a participant, and

(II) is made pursuant to a state domestic relations law.

Section 206(d)(3)(C) requires that in order for a domestic relations order to be qualified such order must clearly 

specify (i) the name and the last known mailing address (if any) of the participant and the name and mailing address 

of each alternate payee covered by the order; (ii) the amount or percentage of the participant's benefits to be paid by 

the plan to each such alternate payee, or the manner in which such amount or percentage is to be determined; (iii) 

the number of payments or period to which such order applies; and (iv) each plan to which the order applies.

Section 206(d)(3)(D) specifies that a domestic relations order is qualified only if such order does not require (i) the 

plan to provide any type of benefit, or any option, not otherwise provided by the plan; (ii) the plan to provide 

increased benefits (determined on the basis of actuarial value); and (iii) the payment of benefits to an alternate payee 

which are required to be paid to another alternate payee under another order previously determined to be a qualified 

domestic relations order.

49 Appendix A 
3 

The term "alternate payee" is defined by section 206(d)(3)(K) to mean "any spouse, former spouse, child, or other 

dependent of a participant who is recognized by a domestic relations order as having a right to receive all, or a 

portion of, the benefits payable under a plan with respect to such participant."

Section 206(d)(3)(F) of ERISA provides, with respect to the joint and survivor and pre-retirement annuity 

provisions, that, to the extent provided in any qualified domestic relations order:

(i) the former spouse of a participant shall be treated as a surviving spouse of such participant for purposes 

of section 205 (and any spouse of the participant shall not be treated as a spouse of the participant for such 

purposes), and

(ii) if married for at least 1 year, the surviving spouse shall be treated as meeting the requirements of 

section 205(f).

Section 206(d)(3)(G) of ERISA requires the plan administrator to determine the qualified status of domestic 

relations orders received by the plan, and to administer distributions under such qualified orders, pursuant to 

reasonable procedures established by the plan. Upon receipt of the order, the plan administrator must promptly 

notify the participant and each alternate payee named in the order of its receipt by the plan and of the plan's 

procedures for determining the order's qualified status.

Based on the foregoing, when a pension plan receives an order requiring that all or a part of the benefits payable 

with respect to a participant be distributed to an alternate payee, the plan administrator must determine that the 

judgment, decree or order is a "domestic relations order" within the meaning of section 206(d)(3)(B)(ii) of ERISA --

i.e., that it relates to the provision of child support, alimony payments, or marital property rights to a spouse, former

spouse, child or other dependent of the participant, and that it is made pursuant to a State domestic relations law by a 

State authority with jurisdiction over such matters. Additionally, the plan administrator must determine that the 

order is qualified under the requirements of section 206(d)(3)(B)(i) of ERISA. It is the view of the Department that 

the plan administrator is not required by section 206(d)(3) or any other provision of Title I to review the correctness 

of a determination by a competent State authority that an individual is a "spouse," "former spouse," "child," "other 

dependent" or “surviving spouse” of the participant under state domestic relations law.

2

With respect to your submission, you have represented that the Order assigns to former spouse Y, as "alternate 

payee," 50% of participant X's accrued benefit under the Plan, and designates Y as the "surviving spouse" of X. 

Further, you indicate that Michigan domestic relations law provides for such a division of property upon the 

annulment of a marriage. Accordingly, it is the view of the Department that, to the extent the Order was executed by 

a court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to Michigan domestic relations law, neither the determination under the 

Order that Y is a "former spouse," and thus meets the requirements to be an "alternate payee" for purposes of section 

206(d)(3)(B) of ERISA, nor the determination that Y is a "surviving spouse" for purposes of section 206(d)(3)(F) of 

ERISA, are required to be reviewed by the plan administrator. The Department expresses no view regarding the 

qualified status of the domestic relations order in this case.3

2 While the question of whether an order is a qualified domestic relations order under 206(d)(3) of ERISA is a 

federal question, determinations regarding an individual’s status as a “spouse,” “former spouse,” “child,” “other 

dependent” or “surviving spouse” for purposes of a QDRO are questions of state law. 3 As indicated in sections 5.01 and 5.04 of ERISA Procedure 76-1, the Department ordinarily will not issue opinions 

on matters which are inherently factual in nature, or on the form or effect in operation of particular plan provisions. 

Accordingly, the Department will not issue advisory opinions as to whether any particular domestic relations order 

constitutes a QDRO, or whether a specific plan procedure for determining the qualified status of domestic relations 

orders satisfies the requirements of ERISA section 206(d)(3)(G)(ii).

Appendix A 50
4 

This letter constitutes an advisory opinion under ERISA Procedure 76-1. Accordingly, it is issued subject to the 

provisions of the procedure, including section 10 thereof relating to the effect of advisory opinions.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Doyle

Director of Regulations and Interpretations

51 Appendix A 
September 29, 1999

Brian G. Belisle 1999-13A

Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP ERISA SEC. 206(d)(3)

Plaza VII

45 South Seventh Street

Suite 3400

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-1609

Dear Mr. Belisle: 

This is in response to your request on behalf of the UAL Corporation (UAL) and United 

Air Lines, Inc. (United) for an advisory opinion. Specifically, you ask how a plan administrator 

should treat domestic relations orders the plan administrator has reason to believe are “sham” or 

“questionable” in nature.1

(1) 

UAL is a holding company. Its major wholly-owned subsidiary is United. You represent 

that employees of United participate in three pension plans — an employee stock ownership 

plan (the ESOP); a 401(k) plan that is a profit sharing plan qualified under section 401(a) of the 

Code (the 401(k) Plan); and a defined benefit pension plan. The ESOP is a combination leveraged 

ESOP and non-leveraged stock bonus plan that is qualified under section 401(a) of the Code. 

Substantially all of the assets in the ESOP are invested in UAL stock. 

You represent that the named plan administrator of the ESOP is UAL. UAL has assigned 

many of its administrative duties under the ESOP, including the duty to establish procedures for 

determining whether a domestic relations order constitutes a “qualified domestic relations order” 

(QDRO), to an ESOP Committee consisting of employees of United. The ESOP Committee has 

delegated to United’s Pension Programs Department (Pension Programs) the responsibility of 

reviewing and determining whether a domestic relations order received by the ESOP Committee 

is a QDRO within the meaning of section 206(d)(3) of ERISA. Appeals of QDRO determinations 

are made to the ESOP Committee. 

You further represent that the ESOP permits an alternate payee to request the immediate 

lump sum distribution of any benefits under the plan that are assigned pursuant to the terms of any 

domestic relations order that the ESOP Committee determines is a QDRO. The ESOP otherwise 

permits lump sum distributions only following a participant’s termination of employment 

(including by way of the participant’s death). 

1

You do not ask and we do not opine as to whether any of the individual domestic relations orders at issue is 

“qualified” pursuant to section 206(d)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended 

(ERISA) and section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). 

Appendix A 52
-2-

The named plan administrator of the 401(k) Plan is United. United has delegated the 

authority to control and manage the administration of the 401(k) Plan, including the duty to 

establish procedures for determining whether a domestic relations order constitutes a QDRO, to 

a Pension and Welfare Plans Administration Committee (PAWPAC) consisting of employees of 

United. PAWPAC in turn has delegated to Pension Programs the responsibility for reviewing and 

determining whether a domestic relations order applying to the 401(k) Plan is a QDRO. Appeals 

of a QDRO determination are made to PAWPAC. As with the ESOP, the 401(k) Plan permits the 

immediate distribution of benefits under the plan that are assigned pursuant to the terms of a 

QDRO. Although an alternate payee may thus receive an immediate lump sum distribution from 

the 401(k) Plan, participants or beneficiaries are entitled to distributions from the 401(k) plan 

only following termination of employment (including by way of the participant’s death) or upon 

financial hardship. 

You represent that Pension Programs currently has under review 16 domestic relations 

orders concerning benefits under the ESOP and the 401(k) Plan that Pension Programs believes 

may be “questionable” or “sham” in nature.2

You detail the grounds for Pension Programs’ suspicions as to the nature of these domestic 

relations orders as follows. Pension Programs received within a very short period of time five 

domestic relations orders from the same lawyer (two of the orders were mailed in the same 

envelope). Each order related to participants working in United’s maintenance facility located 

in Indianapolis, Indiana. Each of the five orders identically provided for an assignment of 100 

percent of the participant’s benefit in the ESOP and the 401(k) Plan to an alternate payee. Each 

order made no provision for any assignment of these participants’ benefits in United’s defined 

benefit pension plan. In each of the orders, the alternate payee and participant were shown as 

having the same address. Despite its suspicions, Pension Programs determined that each of the 

five orders was qualified because they satisfied the requirements of section 206(d)(3) of ERISA. 

In Pension Programs’ view, these orders differed from other domestic relations orders processed 

by Pension Programs in that they dealt only with the ESOP and the 401(k) Plan; they provided 

for assignment of 100 percent of the participant’s benefit; and they showed the participant and 

alternate payee as having the same address. 

After its determination that these five domestic relations orders were QDROs, Pension 

Programs received and reviewed 16 other orders that had unusual characteristics similar to those 

of the original five orders. These 16 orders similarly provided for a 100 percent assignment of 

benefits payable under the ESOP and/or the 401(k) Plan, made no mention of the defined benefit 

pension plan, and specified in most cases that the alternate payee and participant shared the same 

address. You represent that Pension Programs performed additional investigation in its review 

2

Pension Programs processes between approximately 200 and 300 domestic relations orders per year for all of its 

qualified retirement plans. 

53 Appendix A
-3-

of these 16 domestic relations orders to determine whether they were qualified.3 While these 

orders were pending review with Pension Programs, two participants from the Indiana facility 

called at different times to determine the status of the review of their orders. You indicate that, 

during those conversations, each participant asserted that his order was not one of the “fraudulent 

QDROs.” You represent that these statements led Pension Programs to heighten its scrutiny of 

the 16 orders assigning 100 percent of the participant’s right to the ESOP and 401(k) benefits. 

You further represent that, after beginning its investigation of the 16 domestic relations 

orders in question, Pension Programs learned of a pamphlet entitled “Retirement Liberation 

Handbook” that was being distributed by at least one United employee in the Indianapolis, 

Indiana area.4(4) The pamphlet advocated, as a method of acquiring a distribution of pension 

plan benefits before reaching retirement age, that participants and their spouses obtain a divorce 

for the sole purpose of securing a court order assigning pension plan benefits and then remarry. 

Such a sham divorce, according to the Liberation Handbook, would enable the participant to 

obtain direct control over the investment of the participant’s pension benefit. The Liberation 

Handbook also suggested that single employees could go through a sham marriage and 

subsequent divorce, by paying an individual a percentage of the anticipated pension distribution 

as compensation for acting as spouse, or could instead quit employment in order to obtain a 

similar early distribution and later get rehired. The Handbook described in some detail how 

distributions from pension plans are handled for tax purposes and discussed various options for 

distributions and investments of the distributions. 

After reviewing the Liberation Handbook, Pension Programs determined that all of the 

16 orders in question, as well as the original five orders it had previously deemed qualified, 

had significant similarities to the specific format promoted by the Liberation Handbook. For 

example, two of the initial five orders requested that distribution be made to an inappropriate 

account named in the Liberation Handbook. 

In addition, all of the orders identified by Pension Programs as questionable relate to the 

ESOP and 401(k) benefits of employees who, at the time of the order, resided in the Indianapolis 

area and were in related work groups, and all had a number of common characteristics not 

typically seen in Pension Programs’ review of domestic relations orders. Included in these were 

rapid remarriage and continued use by the putative alternate payee of United’s no-cost travel for 

spouses. 

3

You represent that United pays all expenses related to the administration of domestic relations orders and 

QDROs, including all of the investigative efforts relating to any questionable QDROs and all legal expenses. You 

state that no plan assets of either the ESOP or the 401(k) Plan have been used directly or indirectly to pay for the 

expenses of investigating the QDROs at issue here. 

4

The Liberation Handbook apparently first appeared in the classified section of a local advertising exchange.

Appendix A 54
-4-

You represent that Pension Programs engaged local counsel in Indiana to determine 

whether and to what extent the questionable domestic relations orders might be valid under 

Indiana law. Indiana counsel opined that, if the orders had been obtained as promoted by the 

Liberation Handbook, (i) the participant and alternate payee would have committed perjury; (ii) 

the parties would be in contempt of court; (iii) the order would have been fraudulently obtained; 

and (iv) if the foregoing could be established to the satisfaction of a judge, the order likely would 

be vacated by the court. 

You have asked for an advisory opinion as to whether, and if so when, a plan administrator 

may investigate or question a domestic relations order submitted for review to determine whether 

it is a valid “domestic relations order” under State law for purposes of section 206(d)(3)(B) of 

ERISA. 

Section 206(d)(1) of ERISA generally requires pension plans covered by Title I of ERISA to 

provide that plan benefits may not be assigned or alienated. Section 206(d)(3)(A) of ERISA states 

that section 206(d)(1) applies to an assignment or alienation of benefits pursuant to a “domestic 

relations order” unless the order is determined to be a “qualified domestic relations order” 

(QDRO). Section 206(d)(3)(A) further provides that pension plans must provide for payment of 

benefits in accordance with the applicable requirements of any QDRO.

Section 206(d)(3)(B) of ERISA defines the terms “qualified domestic relations order” and 

“domestic relations order” for purposes of section 206(d)(3) as follows:

(B) For purposes of [section 206(d)(3)] —

(i) the term “qualified domestic relations order” means a domestic 

relations order —

(I) which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee’s 

right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all 

or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant 

under a plan, and

(II) with respect to which the requirements of subparagraphs (C) 

and (D) are met, and

(ii) the term “domestic relations order” means any judgment, decree, or 

order (including approval of a property settlement agreement) which 

—

(I) relates to the provision of child support, alimony payments, 

or marital property rights to a spouse, former spouse, child, or 

other dependent of a participant, and

55 Appendix A
-5-

(II) is made pursuant to a State domestic relations law (including a 

community property law).

Section 206(d)(3)(C) requires that in order for a domestic relations order to be qualified 

such order must clearly specify (i) the name and the last known mailing address (if any) of the 

participant and the name and mailing address of each alternate payee covered by the order; (ii) 

the amount or percentage of the participant’s benefits to be paid by the plan to each such alternate 

payee, or the manner in which such amount or percentage is to be determined; (iii) the number of 

payments or period to which such order applies; and (iv) each plan to which the order applies. 

Section 206(d)(3)(D) specifies that a domestic relations order is qualified only if such order 

does not require (i) the plan to provide any type of benefit, or any option, not otherwise provided 

by the plan; (ii) the plan to provide increased benefits (determined on the basis of actuarial value); 

and (iii) the payment of benefits to an alternate payee that are required to be paid to another 

alternate payee under another order previously determined to be a qualified domestic relations 

order. 

Section 206(d)(3)(G) of ERISA requires the plan administrator to determine the qualified 

status of domestic relations orders received by the plan and to administer distributions 

under such qualified orders, pursuant to reasonable procedures established by the plan. In 

administering QDROs, plan administrators must follow the plan’s reasonable procedures, as 

required under section 206(d)(3)(G), and must assure that the plan pays only reasonable expenses 

of administering the plan, as required by sections 403(c)(1) and 404(a)(1)(A) of ERISA. In this 

regard, plan fiduciaries must take appropriate steps to ensure that plan procedures are designed 

to be cost effective and to minimize expenses associated with the administration of domestic 

relations orders. See Advisory Opinion 94-32A (Aug. 4, 1994). 

When a pension plan receives an order requiring that all or a part of the benefits payable 

with respect to a participant be paid to an alternate payee, the plan administrator must determine 

that the judgment, decree or order is a “domestic relations order” within the meaning of section 

206(d)(3)(B)(ii) of ERISA — i.e., that it relates to the provision of child support, alimony payments, 

or marital property rights to a spouse, former spouse, child or other dependent of the participant 

and that it is made pursuant to State domestic relations law by a State authority with jurisdiction 

over such matters. Additionally, the plan administrator must determine that the order is qualified 

under the requirements of section 206(d)(3) of ERISA. It is the view of the Department that the 

plan administrator is not required by section 206(d)(3) or any other provision of Title I to review 

the correctness of a determination by a competent State authority pursuant to State domestic 

relations law that the parties are entitled to a judgment of divorce. See Advisory Opinion 92-17A 

(Aug. 21, 1992). Nevertheless, a plan administrator who has received a document purporting to 

be a domestic relations order must carry out his or her responsibilities under section 206(d)(3) in 

a manner consistent with the general fiduciary duties in part 4 of title I of ERISA. 

Appendix A 56
-6-

For example, if the plan administrator has received evidence calling into question the 

validity of an order relating to marital property rights under State domestic relations law, the 

plan administrator is not free to ignore that information. Information indicating that an order 

was fraudulently obtained calls into question whether the order was issued pursuant to State 

domestic relations law, and therefore whether the order is a “domestic relations order” under 

section 206(d)(3)(C). When made aware of such evidence, the administrator must take reasonable 

steps to determine its credibility. If the administrator determines that the evidence is credible, 

the administrator must decide how best to resolve the question of the validity of the order 

without inappropriately spending plan assets or inappropriately involving the plan in the State 

domestic relations proceeding. The appropriate course of action will depend on the actual facts 

and circumstances of the particular case and may vary depending on the fiduciary’s exercise 

of discretion. However, in these circumstances, we note that appropriate action could include 

relaying the evidence of invalidity to the State court or agency that issued the order and informing 

the court or agency that its resolution of the matter may affect the administrator’s determination 

of whether the order is a QDRO under ERISA.5(5) The plan administrator’s ultimate treatment 

of the order could then be guided by the State court or agency’s response as to the validity of the 

order under State law. If, however, the administrator is unable to obtain a response from the 

court or agency within a reasonable time, the administrator may not independently determine 

that the order is not valid under State law and therefore is not a “domestic relations order” under 

section 206(d)(3)(C), but should rather proceed with the determination of whether the order is a 

QDRO. 

This letter constitutes an advisory opinion under ERISA Procedure 76-1, 41 Fed. Reg. 

36281 (1976). Accordingly, this letter is issued subject to the provisions of that procedure, 

including section 10 thereof, relating to the effect of advisory opinions. 

Sincerely,

Susan G. Lahne

Acting Chief, Division of 

 Fiduciary Interpretation

Office of Regulations 

 and Interpretations 

5

Appropriate action could take other forms, depending on the circumstances and the fiduciary’s assessment of 

the relative costs and benefits, including actual intervention in or initiation of legal proceedings in State court. 

57 Appendix A
July 12, 2000

Gail Inman-Campbell 2000-09A

Walker, Campbell & Campbell ERISA Sec. 206(d)(3)

Suite 201 Security Plaza

P.O. Box 1940

Harrison, Arkansas 72602-1940

Dear Ms. Inman-Campbell: 

This is in response to your request for an advisory opinion under section 206(d)(3) of ERISA. 

You raise questions regarding the proper treatment of a domestic relations order that assigns to an 

alternate payee a “company-paid survivor benefit.” The terms of the affected pension plan makes this 

company-paid survivor benefit payable only to a beneficiary designated by the participant from within 

a limited class of individuals (either the participant’s surviving spouse, the participant’s minor child or 

children, or the participant’s parent or parents). According to your representations, the survivor benefit 

in question is not the qualified joint and survivor annuity (QJSA) benefit that is mandated by section 205 

of ERISA, but is provided by the plan in addition to the QJSA benefit. Specifically, you ask whether an 

order requiring the company-paid survivor benefit to be paid to the participant’s former spouse, who 

had been named by the participant as the designated beneficiary under the plan prior to the divorce 

and as of the date of the participant’s retirement, could constitute a “qualified domestic relations order” 

(QDRO) within the meaning of section 206 (d)(3) of ERISA. 

You represent the applicable facts to be as follows. The plan participant was married when he 

retired from employment. In connection with his retirement, the participant and his then-wife1 executed 

the necessary forms to entitle him to begin to receive his retirement benefits under the employer’s defined 

benefit pension plan (the Plan).2 You further state that the participant elected, with his wife’s consent, to 

decline to receive his benefits under the Plan in the form of a qualified joint and survivor annuity (QJSA) 

and elected instead to receive a single life annuity. The consent form executed by the participant’s wife 

stated:

I, [the participant’s spouse], hereby acknowledge that I have read the notification on the 

reverse side regarding post-retirement survivor benefits under the [Plan] and consent to 

waive my right to receive such benefits as the participant’s spouse under the Retirement 

Equity Act. I also understand that my spouse has authority to specify a beneficiary 

without my knowledge or consent and that I will not receive any benefit under the Plan 

unless specified as a beneficiary by my spouse.

1

Although the participant and his wife were married at the time he retired, they subsequently divorced. 

For the sake of clarity, and because the change in status is relevant to the analysis, this opinion refers to the 

participant’s former spouse variously (depending on the relevant time period) as either the participant’s wife or 

the participant’s former wife.

2

The Department does not interpret the terms of individual pension plans and has relied, in reaching the 

conclusions expressed herein, on your representations as to the terms of the Plan and the manner in which those 

terms are interpreted by the Plan administrator. The Department takes no position regarding the correctness of 

the representations. 

Appendix A 58
-2-

You represent that, in addition to providing the QJSA form of benefit, the Plan provides a 

company-paid survivor benefit (described below), to which the participant had earned a vested right. 

This company-paid survivor benefit provides monthly payments to “the surviving spouse of an active 

employee, the spouse at retirement of a former employee, or a survivor or survivors specified by [the 

participant] in such a manner as the Board of Benefits and Pensions may prescribe.” Plan, Section 

VI.A (1). You state that the Plan generally limits the categories of survivors whom the participant may 

designate to receive the company-paid survivor benefit to the following: (1) the employee’s spouse (with 

payments to minor children following the spouse’s death); (2) the employee’s minor children; or (3) a 

parent or stepparent of the employee. 

In connection with his retirement, the participant designated his wife, together with their thenminor child, as the beneficiaries for the company-paid survivor benefit. That designation has remained 

in effect unchanged since it was executed. The participant began receiving monthly annuity benefits 

under the Plan at his retirement and has continued receiving such benefits since that time. 

A state court some time later issued a divorce decree dissolving the marriage of the participant 

and his wife. Thereafter, a Nunc Pro Tunc Supplemental Divorce Decree, (the domestic relations order),(3) 

3

described a division of the participant’s benefits under the Plan. The domestic relations order assigned 

to the former wife, as alternate payee, a certain portion of the participant’s life annuity payments. The 

domestic relations order further provided that the former wife “shall be treated as a surviving spouse, as 

she was the Participant’s spouse at his retirement, and that [she] shall receive the employer paid survivor 

benefits as stated under [the plan].” 

After the domestic relations order was submitted to the Plan, the Plan Administrator rejected the 

domestic relations order as not qualified with respect to the provision of survivor benefits, stating:

The order attempts to force the Plan to provide a type or form of benefit not otherwise 

available under the Plan. As explained in previous determination reports, there are 

no survivor benefits available for any alternate payee. There are no survivor benefits 

available for [the participant’s ex-wife]. The court cannot award the Companypaid survivor benefit to [the participant’s ex-wife] because she is not a Plan-qualified 

beneficiary. The court cannot award a non-existent benefit to an alternate payee.

* * * * *

At his retirement, [the participant] designated his spouse, [the participant’s former 

wife], as the beneficiary for the Company-paid survivor benefit. Pursuant to the terms 

of the Plan, the Company-paid survivor benefit can be paid only to a Plan- qualified 

beneficiary — spouse, minor children, parent, or stepparent, not a former spouse. At 

3

An earlier order that had purported to assign the right of a surviving spouse to receive survivor benefits in the 

form of the qualified joint and survivor annuity (QJSA) under section 205 of ERISA (section 401(a)(11) of the 

Internal Revenue Code) to the participant’s former wife was rejected by the Plan as not qualified because the 

former wife had validly consented to the waiver of those rights. You represent that the former wife does not 

dispute that she properly waived her right under federal law to receive survivor benefits in the form of a QJSA. 

59 Appendix A
-3-

the time of his retirement, [the participant] designated his spouse and a minor child to 

receive the Company-paid survivor benefit. During the remaining 10+ years that the 

parties remained married, [the participant] controlled the beneficiary designation for the 

Company-paid survivor benefit. At any time during the remainder of the marriage, [the 

participant] could change the beneficiary to any other Plan-qualified beneficiary or to no 

one without [the participant’s former wife’s] consent.

(Emphasis original). 

You ask whether the Plan is correct in concluding that, in ordering the company-paid survivor 

benefit to be paid to the participant’s former wife, the domestic relations order would require the Plan to 

provide a “type or form of benefit, or [an] option not otherwise provided” under the Plan, which is not 

permitted under section 206(d)(3)(D)(i) of ERISA. As explained below, it is the view of the Department 

that the Plan erred in reaching this conclusion. 

Section 206(d)(1) of ERISA generally requires pension plans covered by Title I of ERISA to 

provide that plan benefits may not be assigned or alienated. Section 206(d)(3)(A) of ERISA states that 

section 206(d)(1) applies to an assignment or alienation of benefits pursuant to a “domestic relations 

order,” unless the order is determined to be a “qualified domestic relations order.” Section 206(d)(3)

(A) further provides that pension plans must provide for payment of benefits in accordance with the 

applicable requirements of any QDRO. 

Section 206(d)(3)(B) of ERISA defines the terms “qualified domestic relations order” and 

“domestic relations order” for purposes of section 206(d)(3) as follows:

(B) For purposes of [section 206(d)(3)] —

(i) the term “qualified domestic relations order” means a domestic relations 

order —

(I) which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee’s right 

to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion 

of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan, and

(II) with respect to which the requirements of subparagraphs (C) and (D) 

are met, and

(ii) the term “domestic relations order” means any judgment, decree, or order 

(including approval of a property settlement agreement) which —

(I) relates to the provision of child support, alimony payments, or marital 

property rights to a spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent 

of a participant, and

Appendix A 60
-4-

(II) is made pursuant to a State domestic relations law (including a 

community property law).

Section 206(d)(3)(D) specifies that a domestic relations order is qualified only if such order does 

not require (i) the plan to provide any type of benefit, or any option, not otherwise provided by the 

plan; (ii) the plan to provide increased benefits (determined on the basis of actuarial value); and (iii) the 

payment of benefits to an alternate payee which are required to be paid to another alternate payee under 

another order previously determined to be a qualified domestic relations order. 

Section 206(d)(3)(F) of ERISA provides, with respect to the joint and survivor and pre- retirement 

annuity provisions in ERISA, that, “[t]o the extent provided in any qualified domestic relations order”:

(i) the former spouse of a participant shall be treated as a surviving spouse of 

such participant for purposes of section 205 (and any spouse of the participant 

shall not be treated as a spouse of the participant for such purposes), and

(ii) if married for at least 1 year, the surviving spouse shall be treated as meeting 

the requirements of section 205(f).

It is our view that section 206(d)(3)(F) does not, in itself, limit the scope of the survivor benefits 

that may be assigned to an alternate payee pursuant to section 206(d)(3)(B). Rather, the general scope of 

permissible assignment is defined by section 206(d)(3)(B) itself, as limited by sections 206(d)(3)(C) and 

206(d)(3)(D).4 Section 206 (d)(3)(B) provides broadly for the possibility of assigning not merely “benefits 

payable to a participant,” but “all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under 

a plan.” In using this particular language, Congress made clear that the QDRO provisions are intended 

to enable State courts or agencies to assign any and all benefits payable under a plan that a participant 

had earned through employment. 

Further, any assignment effected by a QDRO necessarily has the effect of requiring the substitution 

of an alternate payee for the individual (participant or beneficiary) who would otherwise be entitled to 

receive the benefit under the terms of the plan in question. The Plan’s conclusion that such a substitution 

would require the Plan to provide a “type or form of benefit, or any option, not otherwise provided” 

under the Plan, in violation of section 206(d)(3)(D), thus, proves too much. Such an argument would 

invalidate any assignment of benefits pursuant to a domestic relations order. 

4

Section 206(d)(3)(F) provides an additional right that may be assigned to an alternate payee: the right to be 

treated as if the divorce had not occurred with respect to the survivor rights created by section 205 of ERISA. The 

section 205 rights include, but extend beyond, the right to receive the survivor portion of the joint and survivor 

annuity form of benefit payment that must be provided as the normal form of payment under a plan subject 

to section 205. Section 206(d)(3)(E) further permits alternate payees to be afforded the right to receive benefit 

payments as of a participant’s “earliest retirement age,” rather than when the participant is entitled to receive 

benefit payments. 

61 Appendix A
-5-

In this case, the alternate payee was the individual actually designated by the participant as his 

beneficiary to receive the company-paid survivor benefit. At his retirement, and until their subsequent 

divorce, the alternate payee was also within the class of individuals expressly entitled under the terms 

of the Plan to be named as beneficiary. The order did no more than preserve the alternate payee’s 

status as a spouse with respect to the company-paid survivor benefit when the divorce would otherwise 

have altered that status. The assignment effected by the order, thus, would not require the Plan to 

provide a type or form of benefit, or an option not otherwise provided under the Plan. It is the view 

of the Department that, under the circumstances of this case as you have described them, the plan 

administrator erred in concluding that an order that named a participant’s former spouse as beneficiary 

for the company-paid survivor benefit would violate the limitations imposed by section 206(d)(3)(D) and 

therefore could not constitute a QDRO.5

This letter constitutes an advisory opinion under ERISA Procedure 76-1, 41 Fed. Reg. 36281 

(1976). Accordingly, this letter is issued subject to the provisions of that procedure, including section 10 

thereof, relating to the effect of advisory opinions. 

Sincerely,

Louis Campagna

Chief, Division of 

Fiduciary Interpretations

Office of Regulations 

and Interpretations 

5

A domestic relations order, nonetheless, could not be deemed to be qualified if it assigned benefits that have 

already been paid or have been validly waived under a plan. For example, if an alternate payee has validly 

waived QJSA rights, as the participant’s former wife apparently did when the participant retired, a subsequently 

issued domestic relations order could not require a plan to provide QJSA rights to the alternate payee. 

Appendix A 62
June 1, 2001

Lee Sapienza 2001-06A

Chief, Bureau of Policy and Planning ERISA Sec. 206(d)(3)

Division of Child Support Enforcement

Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance

40 North Pearl Street

Albany, NY 12243-0001

Dear Mr. Sapienza: 

This is in response to your request for guidance regarding the qualified domestic relations order 

(QDRO) provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA).1

(1) 

In particular, you ask whether an income withholding notice issued by the New York State Office of 

Temporary and Disability Assistance, Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE), or a county child 

support enforcement agency operating under DCSE guidelines, is a judgment, decree, or order within 

the meaning of section 206(d)(3)(B)(ii) of ERISA. 

DCSE is a state agency that administers the programs under Part D of Title IV of the Social 

Security Act (Title IV-D), generally known as the Child Support Enforcement (CSE), or IV-D, program, 

for the State of New York. The Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), Department of 

Health and Human Services, has the responsibility to establish standards for state IV-D agencies, and 

manages the distribution of federal funding to the state IV-D agencies. 

Section 466(a) of the Social Security Act (the act) requires that, as a condition for receiving federal 

funding under Title IV-D, states have procedures to effectuate withholding from the income of obligors 

amounts payable as child support in cases that are subject to enforcement by the state. Section 466(b) of 

the act prescribes procedures that the states must provide for with respect to such income withholding. 

That section also defines income for purposes of the withholding requirements to include periodic 

payments due to an individual pursuant to a pension or retirement program. You represent that state 

IV-D agencies, including DCSE, routinely issue income withholding notices pursuant to federal and state 

law to enforce child support orders against obligor parents. The child support orders are made pursuant 

to state family or domestic relations law. The income withholding notices may seek to enforce the child 

support obligation from various sources of income, including benefits due to a participant in a pension 

plan. 

You represent that notices issued by DCSE and county child support enforcement agencies 

are frequently determined not to be QDROs by plan administrators. You represent that these plan 

administrators contend that an income withholding notice is not a judgment, decree, or order, and 

1

References to the Internal Revenue Code sections that parallel the provisions of section 206(d)(3) of ERISA (the 

QDRO provisions) are omitted from the following, but may be assumed to be incorporated by reference when 

the parallel provision of section 206(d)(3) is cited. 

63 Appendix A
therefore not a domestic relations order as defined in section 206(d)(3)(B)(ii) of ERISA. As a result, when 

a pension plan rejects an income withholding notice, DCSE or the county child support enforcement 

agency must obtain a court order requiring the plan to withhold the necessary child support payments, 

which order then generally will be accepted as a QDRO by plan administrators. 

Section 206(d)(1) of ERISA generally requires that benefits provided under a pension plan may 

not be assigned or alienated. Section 206(d)(3)(A) of ERISA provides that the anti- assignment and 

alienation provisions of section 206(d)(1) apply to the assignment or alienation of benefits pursuant to 

a domestic relations order, unless the order is determined to be a qualified domestic relations order. 

Section 206(d)(3)(A) further provides that pension plans must provide for the payment of benefits in 

accordance with the applicable requirements of any QDRO. 

Section 206(d)(3)(B) of ERISA defines the term qualified domestic relations order for purposes of 

section 206(d)(3) as a domestic relations order which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate 

payee’s right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits 

payable with respect to a participant under a plan, and which meets the requirements of section 206(d)

(3)(C) and (D).2(2) 

The term domestic relations order is defined in section 206(d)(3)(B)(ii) as any judgment, decree, 

or order (including approval of a property settlement agreement) which relates to the provision 

of child support, alimony payments, or marital property rights to a spouse, former spouse, child, or 

other dependent of a participant, and is made pursuant to a state domestic relations law (including a 

community property law). 

The term alternate payee is defined by ERISA section 206(d)(3)(K) to mean any spouse, former 

spouse, child or other dependent of a participant who is recognized by a domestic relations order as 

having a right to receive all, or a portion of, the benefits payable under a plan with respect to such 

participant. 

2

Section 206(d)(3)(C) provides that in order for a domestic relations order to be qualified, the order must 

clearly specify (i) the name and last known mailing address (if any) of the participant and the name 

and mailing address of each alternate payee covered by the order; (ii) the amount or percentage of the 

participant’s benefits to be paid by the plan to each such alternate payee, or the manner in which such 

amount or percentage is to be determined; (iii) the number of payments or period to which such order 

applies; and (iv) each plan to which the order applies. 

Section 206(d)(3)(D) specifies that a domestic relations order is not qualified if it requires: (i) the plan to 

provide any type of benefit, or any option, not otherwise provided by the plan; (ii) the plan to provide 

increased benefits (determined on the basis of actuarial value); or (iii) the payment of benefits to an alternate 

payee which are required to be paid to another alternate payee under another order previously determined 

to be a qualified domestic relations order. Section 206(d)(3)(E) provides that an order may not provide that 

an alternate payee receive a benefit earlier than the date on which the participant reaches his or her earliest 

retirement age, unless the plan permits payments at an earlier date. Earliest retirement age is defined as 

the earlier of: (1) The date on which the participant is entitled to receive a distribution under the plan, or 

(2) the later of (a) the date the participant reaches age 50 or (b) the earliest date on which the participant 

could begin receiving benefits under the plan if the participant separated from service with the employer.

-2-

Appendix A 64
-3-

Section 206(d)(3)(G) of ERISA requires the plan administrator to determine whether a domestic 

relations order received by the plan is qualified, and to administer distributions under such qualified 

orders, pursuant to reasonable procedures established by the plan. 

When a pension plan receives an order requiring that all or part of the benefits payable with 

respect to a participant be distributed to an alternate payee, the plan administrator must determine 

that the judgment, decree, or order is a domestic relations order within the meaning of section 206(d)

(3)(B)(ii) of ERISA - i.e., that it relates to the provision of child support, alimony payments, or marital 

property rights to a spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of the participant, and that it is 

made pursuant to a state domestic relations law by a state authority with jurisdiction over such matters. 

Additionally, the plan administrator must determine that the order is qualified under the requirements 

of section 206(d)(3)(B)(i) of ERISA. 

It is the view of the department that an income withholding notice issued by DCSE or county 

child support enforcement agencies (as described in your submission) as part of the state’s IV-D program, 

is a domestic relations order as defined in section 206(d)(3)(B)(ii) of ERISA. The notice relates to the 

provision of child support to a child of a participant in a pension plan, enforces a child support order 

that is made pursuant to state family or domestic relations law, and is made by DCSE or a county child 

support enforcement agency, which have jurisdiction over child support matters. We note in particular 

that section 206(d)(3)(B)(ii) does not specify that in order for a judgment, decree, or order to be a domestic 

relations order for the purposes of section 206(d)(3) that it must be issued by a court. 

While a withholding notice issued by DCSE may constitute a domestic relations order for 

purposes of section 206(d)(3) of ERISA, the administrator of a pension plan that receives such a notice 

is still obligated to determine whether the notice is a qualified domestic relations order as defined in 

section 206(d)(3)(B). Whether any notice issued by the state, including the Order/Notice To Withhold 

Income For Child Support (the form developed by OCSE that state IV-D agencies are required to use 

to enforce child support obligations), satisfies the requirements of section 206(d)(3)(C) and (D) is an 

inherently factual question on which the department is unable to opine. 

65 Appendix A
-4-

This letter constitutes an advisory opinion under ERISA Procedure 76-1. Accordingly, it is issued 

subject to the provisions of the procedure, including section 10 thereof relating to the effect of advisory 

opinions. 

Sincerely,

Louis Campagna

Chief, Division of Fiduciary 

Interpretations

Office of Regulations 

and Interpretations 

Appendix A 66
67 Appendix A

June 7, 2002

Alsee McDaniel, Director 2002-03A

Division of Child Support Enforcement ERISA Sec. 206(d) 

Department of Human Services

750 North State Street

Jackson, MS 39202

Dear Mr. McDaniel:

This is in response to your request for an advisory opinion concerning the application of section 

206(d) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), with respect to 

the Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE). Your 

submission contains the following facts and representations. 

DCSE is a state agency that administers the programs under Part D of Title IV of the Social 

Security Act (Title IV-D), generally known as the Child Support Enforcement (CSE), or IV-D, program, 

for the State of Mississippi. The Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), Department of 

Health and Human Services, has the responsibility to establish standards for state IV-D agencies, and 

manages the distribution of Federal funding to the IV-D agencies. 

Like other IV-D agencies, DCSE collects child support both for custodial parents who are receiving 

economic assistance from the state and for those who are not receiving such assistance, but have applied 

for the agencys services in collecting support payments. DCSE distributes the support payments that 

it collects on behalf of the custodial parent as follows. If the custodial parent has a public assistance 

arrearage1 and is no longer receiving public assistance, DCSE transmits all child support payments 

it receives to the custodial parent as current child support payments plus any existing child support 

arrearage before any of the payment is applied to the public assistance arrearage. If the custodial parent 

has a public assistance arrearage and is currently receiving public assistance, DCSE applies the payments 

it receives first to the public assistance arrearage and transmits any remaining funds to the custodial 

parent as current child support payments. If the custodial parent is not receiving public assistance and 

has no public assistance arrearage, then DCSE transmits the entire payment to the custodial parent. In 

all cases, DCSE receives the child support payments, deposits them in its own account, and distributes a 

check representing the child support payment (minus any public assistance arrearages, if applicable) to 

the custodial parent. 

Section 206(d)(1) of ERISA generally requires pension plans subject to Title I to provide that plan 

benefits may not be assigned or alienated. Section 206(d)(3)(A) provides an exception to the general rule 

1

Pursuant to the IV-D program, State laws provide that a custodial parent who receives public assistance from a 

State is deemed to assign to the State any right or claim to child support payments that the non-custodial parent 

is obligated to make, but has not made, to the extent of the owed child support payments plus the State’s costs 

incurred in collecting such support payments. These public assistance payments are considered public assistance 

arrearages that are owed to the State IV-D agency. In such situations, the public assistance is, essentially, an 

advance by the State of the child support obligations of the non-custodial parent to the extent of nonpayment, 

and the retention by the State of all or a portion of the support payments subsequently secured from the noncustodial parent is reimbursement of such advances. 
Appendix A 68

for the creation, assignment or recognition of a right to any benefit payable with respect to a participant 

pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Section 206(d)(3)(A) further requires that 

pension plans must provide for the payment of benefits in accordance with the applicable terms of any 

QDRO. Section 206(d)(3) describes the conditions that a domestic relations order must satisfy in order 

to be a QDRO, as well as additional rules regarding a plan administrator’s determination of whether 

a domestic relations order is a QDRO, how benefits are to be administered pursuant to a QDRO, and 

definitions of certain terms used in section 206(d)(3). 

Among other things, section 206(d)(3)(B) provides that a domestic relations order that creates 

or recognizes an alternate payee’s right to, or assigns to the alternate payee the right to, receive all 

or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan, and complies with the 

requirements of section 206(d)(3)(C) and (D) is a QDRO. A domestic relations order is defined as any 

judgment, decree, or order that relates to, among other things, the provision of child support to a child 

of a participant. Alternate payee is defined in section 206(d)(3)(K) to mean any spouse, former spouse, 

child, or other dependent of a participant who is recognized by a domestic relations order as having a 

right to receive all, or a portion of, the benefits payable under a plan with respect to such participant. 

You ask whether, under the circumstances described above, DCSE may be considered an alternate 

payee within the meaning of section 206(d)(3)(K) of ERISA, or, in the alternative, whether a domestic 

relations order that requires a pension plan to make payments to DCSE on behalf of any alternate payee 

named in the order may be a QDRO. 

You argue that in cases in which the custodial parent received public assistance due, at least in 

part, to the non-custodial parent’s nonpayment of ordered child support prior to the issuance of a QDRO, 

permitting the IV-D agency to be an alternate payee assures that such amounts are returned to state and 

federal governments when child support payments are made pursuant to the QDRO. In addition, you 

maintain that public policy favors allowing IV-D agencies to be alternate payees so that reliable records 

of all child support payments can be kept. 

Section 206(d)(3)(K) of ERISA defines the classes of persons who may be alternate payees for 

purposes of the QDRO provisions. This provision is part of an exception to ERISA’s general rule that 

benefits due to a participant from a pension may not be assigned or alienated, and thus is to be read 

narrowly. In the opinion of the Department, an alternate payee cannot be anyone other than one of the 

persons identified in section 206(d)(3)(K), i.e., a spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of a 

participant in a pension plan. Therefore, DCSE cannot be an alternate payee. 

However, the Department recognizes that circumstances may arise that will necessitate another 

person’s acting on behalf of an alternate payee, such as if an alternate payee is a minor or is legally 

incompetent. In such cases, a domestic relations order that requires that the plan make payment to 

someone with legal responsibility for the alternate payee, such as a guardian or party acting in loco 

parentis in the case of such child, or a trustee as agent for the alternate payee, may still be a QDRO.2 You 

state that, while DCSE’s relationship to a child does not rise to the level of a court-appointed guardian 

2

See, Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, Explanation of Technical Corrections to the Tax Reform Act of 

1984 and Other Recent Tax Legislation, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (Comm. Print 1987) at 222. 

-2-
ad litem or to the fiduciary level of a trustee, DCSE is charged, by federal and state law, to act in the best 

interests of each child for which it is acting. DCSE is obligated by law to establish a non-custodial parent’s 

child support obligation, to secure and collect child support payments from any person who is legally 

liable for such support, and to disburse support payments to the custodial parent. DCSE is authorized 

to use any method available under state law to establish and enforce a parent’s support obligations. You 

therefore contend that DCSE has essentially the same level of responsibility as a guardian or trustee with 

respect to child support payments, since it is legally obligated to act on the child’s behalf, and any child 

support received goes to the custodial parent on behalf of the child. 

It appears that DCSE, in the circumstances you describe, acts as an agent for the child on whose 

behalf it is acting. The agency receives funds from a pension plan in which the obligor is a participant, 

and forwards all of those funds to the alternate payee, or the alternate payee’s custodial parent, except for 

the reimbursement to DCSE of public assistance arrearages,” which, as noted above, represent advances 

by the state to the custodial parent of unpaid support obligations. Under these circumstances, it is the 

opinion of the Department that the fact that a domestic relations order names DCSE as the party to 

whom payments are to be made on behalf of an alternate payee, would not constitute grounds on which 

a plan administrator could find the order not to be qualified. 

This letter constitutes an advisory opinion under ERISA Procedure 76-1 (41 Fed. Reg. 36281, 

August 27, 1976). Accordingly, this letter is issued subject to the provisions of the procedure, including 

section 10 relating to the effect of advisory opinions. 

Sincerely,

Louis Campagna

Chief, Division of Fiduciary 

Interpretations

Office of Regulations 

and Interpretations 

cc: Darrell Baughn 

-3-

69 Appendix A
February 17, 2004

Terry-Lynne Lastovich 2004-02A

Dorsey & Whitney LLP ERISA Sec. 206(d)(3) 

50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500

Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498 

Dear Ms. Lastovich: 

This is in response to your request on behalf of Northwest Airlines, Inc. Retirement Plan for 

Pilot Employees (the Plan) for an advisory opinion under section 206(d) of Title I of the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Specifically, you ask whether a domestic relations 

order that changes a prior assignment of benefits to an alternate payee to reduce the amount assigned to 

the alternate payee may be a “qualified domestic relations order” (QDRO) within the meaning of section 

206(d)(3) of ERISA. 

You represent that this question arises out of a divorce and property settlement involving a 

now-retired employee of Northwest Airlines, Inc. (the participant) and his former spouse (the alternate 

payee). The participant has earned a vested pension benefit under the Plan, which is a defined benefit 

pension plan. Northwest Airlines, Inc. (Northwest) sponsors and is the administrator of the Plan. 

In 1997, while the participant was still actively employed, the Plan received a domestic relations 

order, dated April 3, 1997, that assigned to the alternate payee a percentage of the participant’s pension 

benefits (the 1997 Order). The 1997 Order was issued by the District Court of the First Judicial District, 

Family Court Division, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota. In accordance with its procedures, the 

Plan reviewed the order, determined it to be a QDRO, and so informed both the participant and the 

alternate payee on August 27, 1997. 

In November 2000, while the participant was still actively employed, the participant notified the 

Plan that both he and the alternate payee desired to modify the assignment reflected in the QDRO to 

reduce the portion of the participant’s benefits that would be paid in the future to the alternate payee. 

The participant sought the Plan’s advice on how to make such a change. The Plan advised the alternate 

payee and the participant that it would not consider an order that purported to reduce the assignment 

already made under a previously recognized QDRO to be permissible. 

Nonetheless, on June 6, 2002, the participant submitted to the Plan a second domestic relations 

order, dated June 4, 2002 (the 2002 Order). The 2002 Order was also issued by the District Court of the 

First Judicial District, Family Division, County of Dakota, State of Minnesota. This order stated that the 

parties to the divorce were “in agreement” that the QDRO provisions of the 1997 Order should be altered 

and therefore ordered that those 1997 QDRO provisions were “deleted.” The 2002 Order set forth new 

provisions for a different (and smaller) assignment to the alternate payee. 

During the course of its review of the 2002 Order, the Plan expressed its doubts as to whether 

such a reduction in the amount assigned could be effected by a QDRO and requested both participant 

and alternate payee to provide “a written explanation of why this amended order should or should not 

Appendix A 70
be reviewed as a qualified domestic relations order.” These parties declined to offer argument on this 

issue and continued to assert that the 2002 Order expressed their consensus on how the participant’s 

benefits should be divided between them. 

In September 2002, before the Plan had issued a determination on the qualified status of the 

2002 Order, the participant retired, and Northwest began paying benefits to both the participant and the 

alternate payee under the terms of the 1997 Order. 

On November 15, 2002, the Plan sent a letter to the participant, setting forth its “decision” that 

the 2002 Order was not qualified, based upon its view that a subsequent order cannot reduce the benefits 

awarded to an alternate payee under a previous domestic relations order recognized by the Plan as a 

QDRO. This letter set forth the following additional determinations: (1) the 2002 Order is “provisionally” 

determined not to be a QDRO; (2) the 1997 Order continues in full force and effect; (3) the Plan has 

requested an advisory opinion from the Department of Labor (the Department) on whether an order that 

“takes away” benefits previously assigned to an alternate payee can be a QDRO; and (4) pending issuance 

of the advisory opinion, the Plan will continue to pay out benefits in accordance with the 1997 Order. 

The letter further advised the participant that, if the Department opined that the 2002 Order cannot be a 

QDRO, the Plan’s determination would become “final.” The letter further stated that if the Department 

opined that the 2002 Order could be a QDRO “even though it ‘takes away’ a benefit previously awarded” 

to the alternate payee, it would then seek reimbursement of any “overpayments” made to the alternate 

payee based on the 1997 Order. If the alternate payee did not return the “overpayments” the Plan would 

withhold future payments to the alternate payee until the “overpayments” were recovered. 

This request for an advisory opinion ensued. In the context of these facts, you seek guidance 

on whether the 2002 Order, which purported to reduce the amount of the participant’s benefits that are 

assigned to the alternate payee, could qualify as a QDRO within the meaning of section 206(d)(3) of 

ERISA. 

Under section 206(d)(3) of ERISA, the plan administrator is the party to whom an initial 

determination of the qualified status of an order is entrusted. The Department generally does not 

provide advisory opinions addressing this question because making such a determination necessarily 

requires an interpretation of the specific provisions of a plan and application of those provisions to 

specific facts, including the nature and amount of a participant’s pension benefits. Nonetheless, the 

Department believes it is appropriate to provide guidance under section 206(d)(3) on the narrow issue 

you have presented of whether a subsequent domestic relations order that alters or modifies a qualified 

domestic relations order involving the same participant and alternate payee may itself be qualified and 

therefore supercede the previous order. In providing this guidance, however, the Department takes 

no position on whether any particular order described in this letter is or is not a “qualified domestic 

relations order” within the meaning of section 206(d)(3) of ERISA. 

Section 206(d)(1) of ERISA generally requires pension plans covered by Title I of ERISA to provide 

that plan benefits may not be assigned or alienated. Section 206(d)(3)(A) of ERISA states that section 

206(d)(1) applies to any assignment or alienation of benefits made pursuant to a “domestic relations 

order,” unless the order is determined to be a “qualified domestic relations order.” Section 206(d)(3)

-3-

71 Appendix A
(A) further provides that pension plans must provide for the payment of benefits in accordance with the 

applicable requirements of any order that is determined to be a “qualified domestic relations order.” 

The grounds on which the plan administrator must judge the status of an order that purports to assign 

benefits are set forth in the specific subparagraphs of section 206(d)(3). 

Subparagraph (B) of section 206(d)(3) of ERISA defines the terms “qualified domestic relations 

order” and “domestic relations order” for purposes of section 206(d)(3) as follows: 

(B) For purposes of [section 206(d)(3)] — 

(i) the term “qualified domestic relations order” means a domestic relations order — 

(I) which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee’s right to, or assigns to an alternate 

payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a 

plan, and 

(II) with respect to which the requirements of subparagraphs (C) and (D) are met, and 

(ii) the term “domestic relations order” means any judgment, decree, or order (including approval of a 

property settlement agreement) which — 

(I) relates to the provision of child support, alimony payments, or marital property rights to a spouse, 

former spouse, child, or other dependent of a participant, and 

(II) is made pursuant to a State domestic relations law (including a community property law). 

Subparagraphs (C) and (D) of section 206(d)(3) of ERISA contain both positive and negative 

requirements for qualification of a domestic relations order. Subparagraph (C) specifies that, in order 

for a domestic relations order to be qualified, such order must clearly specify (i) the name and the last 

known mailing address (if any) of the participant and the name and mailing address of each alternate 

payee covered by the order; (ii) the amount or percentage of the participant’s benefits to be paid by the 

plan to each such alternate payee, or the manner in which such amount or percentage is to be determined; 

(iii) the number of payments or period to which such order applies; and (iv) each plan to which the order 

applies. 

Subparagraph (D) provides that an order cannot be qualified if it either (i) requires the plan to 

provide any type of benefit, or any option, not otherwise provided by the plan; (ii) requires the plan to 

provide increased benefits (determined on the basis of actuarial value); or (iii) requires the plan to pay 

benefits to an alternate payee that are required to be paid to another alternate payee under another order 

previously determined to be a qualified domestic relations order. 

A plan administrator may determine that an order is not qualified only on the basis of the 

requirements set forth in section 206(d)(3) of ERISA. In our view, nothing in section 206(d)(3) suggests 

that a State court (or other appropriate State agency or instrumentality) may not alter or modify a 

-4-

Appendix A 72
previous domestic relations order involving the same participant and alternate payee, as long as the new 

domestic relations order itself meets the statutory requirements. Indeed, the purpose of section 206(d)

(3) is to permit the division of marital property on divorce in accordance with the directions of the State 

authority with jurisdiction to achieve the appropriate disposition of property upon the dissolution of a 

marriage. Where a State authority reasserts jurisdiction over a marital dissolution and issues an order 

changing a previously established property allocation, it would appear contrary to this purpose to create 

additional requirements, beyond what is specified in section 206(d)(3) of ERISA, that would thwart the 

exercise of that authority. Accordingly, provided that a domestic relations order otherwise meets the 

requirements of section 206(d)(3) of ERISA, a plan administrator may not fail to qualify the domestic 

relations order merely because the order changes a prior assignment to the same alternate payee.1 Thus, 

it is the Department’s view that a plan administrator may determine, consistent with the requirements 

of section 206(d)(3), that a domestic relations order is qualified even if it would supersede or amend a 

pre-existing QDRO assigning the same participant’s benefits to the same alternate payee. 

The plan administrator in this case has made apparent its intention to seek repayments from, or 

to withhold future payments to, the alternate payee of amounts paid out in accordance with the 1997 

Order. We do not believe that, under these facts, the plan administrator would have the authority to 

do so. As a general matter, a plan administrator making QDRO determinations has fiduciary duties 

applicable to the determination process. The administrator has a duty under section 206(d)(3)(G) of 

ERISA to determine whether a domestic relations order is a QDRO within a reasonable time after receipt 

and to promptly notify the participant and each alternate payee of the determination. The administrator 

has a duty under section 404(a)(1) of ERISA to act prudently and solely in the interests of the plan’s 

participants and beneficiaries, and to follow the plan’s QDRO procedures unless they conflict with the 

provisions of ERISA. 

Because, in this case, the plan administrator had previously determined the 1997 Order to be a 

QDRO, the plan was required to make benefit payments in accordance with the 1997 Order. The plan 

administrator took no steps to preserve the amounts that would be affected by the 2002 Order during 

its consideration of that order’s qualified status, but continued to make the payments required by the 

1997 Order. Subparagraph (I) of section 206(d)(3) of ERISA provides that, if a plan fiduciary, acting 

in accordance with its fiduciary duties, treats a domestic relations order as being qualified, and pays 

out benefits in accordance with its determination and the 18-month segregation rules of subparagraph 

(H), the plan’s obligations to the participant and any alternate payee are discharged with respect to 

such payments.2 Accordingly, under these circumstances it is appropriate to treat the 2002 Order as 

prospective only. There does not appear to be grounds on which the plan could seek repayment from 

the alternate payee of the benefits paid out in accordance with the 1997 Order.3

1

Section 206(d)(3)(D)(iii), which provides that a domestic relations order may be qualified only if it does not 

require the payment of benefits to an alternate payee that are required to be paid to another alternate payee 

under a pre-existing QDRO, does not apply here, where there is only one alternate payee. 2

Although § 206(d)(3)(H) requires an administrator to segregate amounts that would be payable to an alternate payee under an order for 18 months pending determination of the order’s qualified status, that section 

does not require segregation of amounts that would be transferred from the alternate payee (per a previously 

recognized QDRO) to the participant. Nonetheless, the administrator may have been able, under these facts, 

to arrange a voluntary escrow of the amounts in question, since both the participant and the alternate payee 

apparently sought the change in assignment.

3

Nothing in this letter is intended to alter or have any effect on the federal tax consequences under the Internal 

Revenue Code (the Code) to the participant and alternative payee of distributions under either the 1997 Order 

or the 2002 Order. 

-5-

73 Appendix A
This letter constitutes an advisory opinion under ERISA Procedure 76-1, 41 Fed. Reg. 36281 

(1976). Accordingly, this letter is issued subject to the provisions of that procedure, including section 10 

thereof, relating to the effect of advisory opinions. 

Sincerely,

Louis Campagna

Chief, Division of Fiduciary 

Interpretations

Office of Regulations 

and Interpretations 

-6-

Appendix A 74
Field Assistance Bulletin 2003-3

May 19, 2003

Memorandum for: Virginia C. Smith

Director of Enforcement, Regional Directors

From: Robert J. Doyle

Director of Regulations and Interpretations

Subject: Allocation of Expenses in a Defined Contribution Plan

Issue

What rules apply to how expenses are allocated among plan participants in a defined contribution 

pension plan?

Background

A number of questions have been raised in the course of investigations and otherwise concerning the 

propriety of certain expense allocation practices in defined contribution plans. This memorandum is 

intended to respond to the various requests for guidance from the National and Regional Offices on 

these issues.1

The two principal issues raised with respect to the allocation of plan expenses in defined contribution 

plans involve the extent to which plan expenses are required to be allocated on a pro rata, rather than 

per capita, basis and the extent to which plan expenses may properly be charged to an individual 

participant, rather than plan participants as a whole. For purposes of discussing these issues, we 

assume first that the expenses at issue are proper plan expenses2(2) and second that, with respect to 

the plan as a whole, the amount of the expenses at issue are reasonable with respect to the services to 

which they relate.

Analysis

ERISA contains no provisions specifically addressing how plan expenses may be allocated among 

participants and beneficiaries. The Act and implementing regulations, however, do address certain 

instances in which a plan may impose charges on particular participants and beneficiaries. For 

example, section 104(b)(4) provides that the plan administrator may impose a reasonable charge to 

cover the cost of furnishing copies of plan documents and instruments upon request of a participant 

or beneficiary.3 Also, section 602 permits group health plans, subject to certain conditions, to require 

the payment of 102% of the applicable premium for any period of continuation coverage elected by 

1

The views set forth herein relate solely to the application of Title I of ERISA. We express no view as to whether any particular allocation of expenses might violate the Internal Revenue Code or any other Federal statute. 2

See Advisory Opinion No. 2001-01A and related hypotheticals for discussion of the principles applicable to 

distinguishing settlor from plan expenses.

3

See § 29 CFR 2520.104b-30. See also § 2520.104-4(b)(2)(ii).

75 Appendix A
an eligible participant or beneficiary. Further, the Department’s regulations under sections 404(c) and 

408(b)(1) provide that reasonable expenses associated with a participant’s exercise of an option under 

the plan to direct investments or to take a participant loan may be separately charged to the account of 

the individual participant.4 By contrast, regulations may limit the ability of a plan to charge a particular 

participant or beneficiary by requiring that information be furnished free of charge upon request of a 

participant or beneficiary.5

Section 404(a)(1) generally provides, in relevant part, that fiduciaries shall discharge their duties with 

respect to a plan “solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries,” prudently (404(a)(1)(B)), 

and “in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan insofar as such documents 

and instruments are consistent with the provisions of [Title I] . . . ” (404(a)(1)(D)). Plan fiduciaries, 

therefore, would be required to implement allocation of expense provisions set forth in the plan, unless 

such provisions otherwise violate Title I.

Accordingly, plan sponsors and fiduciaries have considerable discretion in determining, as a matter of 

plan design or a matter of plan administration, how plan expenses will be allocated among participants 

and beneficiaries.

Allocating Expenses Among All Participants - Pro rata v. Per capita

In analyzing formulas for allocating expenses among all plan participants, the starting point is a 

review of the instruments governing the plan. Inasmuch as ERISA does not specifically address the 

allocation of expenses in defined contribution plans, a plan sponsor, as noted above, has considerable 

discretion in determining the method of expense allocation. Where the method of allocating expenses 

is determined by the plan sponsor (i.e., set forth in the plan documents), fiduciaries, consistent with 

section 404(a)(1)(D), will be required to follow the prescribed method of allocation. The fiduciary’s 

obligation in this regard does not change merely because the allocation method favors a class (or 

classes) of participants. When set forth in plan documents, the method of allocating expenses, in effect, 

becomes part of defining the benefit entitlements under the plan.6

When the plan documents are silent or ambiguous on this issue, fiduciaries must select the method 

or methods for allocating plan expenses. A plan fiduciary must be prudent in the selection of the 

method of allocation. Prudence in such instances would, at a minimum, require a process by which 

the fiduciary weighs the competing interests of various classes of the plan’s participants and the effects 

of various allocation methods on those interests. In addition to a deliberative process, a fiduciary’s 

decision must satisfy the “solely in the interest of participants” standard. In this regard, a method 

of allocating expenses would not fail to be “solely in the interest of participants” merely because the 

selected method disfavors one class of participants, provided that a rational basis exists for the selected 

method.7 On the other hand, if a method of allocation has no reasonable relationship to the services 

4

See § 2550.404c-1(b)(2)(ii)(A) and 54 FR 30520, 30522 (July 20, 1989)(preamble to 29 CFR § 2550.408b-1).

5

See §§ 2520.104-46(b)(1)(i)(C), 2520.104b-1(c)(1)(iii) and (iv), 2520.104b-30.

6

If a plan is intended to be a tax qualified plan, the fiduciary would have a duty to assure that the allocation 

method does not negatively affect the tax qualified status of the plan.

7

In reviewing the propriety of such fiduciary actions, the judicial standard is whether the fiduciary acted in 

an arbitrary or capricious manner. In meeting this standard, the fiduciary has a duty of impartiality to all the 

plan’s participants and may appropriately balance the interests of different classes of participants in evaluating 

a proposed method of expense allocation. See Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489, 514 (1996); Restatement 

-2-

Appendix A 76
furnished or available to an individual account, a case might be made that the fiduciary breached his 

fiduciary duties to act prudently and “solely in the interest of participants” in selecting the allocation 

method. Further, in the case where the fiduciary is also a plan participant, the selection of the method 

of allocation may raise issues under the prohibited transaction provisions of section 406 of ERISA 

where the benefit to the fiduciary is more than merely incidental.

8

 For example, if in anticipation of 

the plan fiduciary’s own divorce, the fiduciary who is also a plan participant decides to change the 

allocation of expenses related to a determination of whether a domestic relations order constitutes 

a “qualified” order from the account incurring the expense to the plan as a whole, such change in 

allocation by the fiduciary could constitute an act of self-dealing under section 406 of ERISA.

While a pro rata method of allocating expenses among individual accounts (i.e., allocations made on 

the basis of assets in the individual account) would appear in most cases to be an equitable method of 

allocation of expenses among participants, it is not the only permissible method. A per capita method 

of allocating expenses among individual accounts (i.e., expenses charged equally to each account, 

without regard to assets in the individual account) may also provide a reasonable method of allocating 

certain fixed administrative expenses of the plan, such as recordkeeping, legal, auditing, annual 

reporting, claims processing and similar administrative expenses. On the other hand, where fees or 

charges to the plan are determined on the basis of account balances, such as investment management 

fees, a per capita method of allocating such expenses among all participants would appear arbitrary. 

With regard to services which provide investment advice to individual participants, a fiduciary may be 

able to justify the allocation of such expenses on either a pro rata or per capita basis and without regard 

to actual utilization of the services by particular individual accounts. Investment advice services might 

also be charged on a utilization basis, as discussed below, whereby the expense will be allocated to an 

individual account solely on the basis of a participant’s utilization of the service.

Allocating Expenses to an Individual v. General Plan Expense

In contrast to the preceding discussion, which focused on methods of allocating plan expenses among 

all participants, the following discussion focuses on the extent to which an expense may be allocated 

(or charged) solely to a particular participant’s individual account, rather than allocated among the 

accounts of all participants (e.g., on a pro rata or per capita basis). The Department provided some 

guidance on this issue in Advisory Opinion No. 94-32A. In analyzing the extent to which a plan may 

charge a participant (or alternate payee) for a determination as to whether a domestic relations order 

constitutes a “qualified” order, the Department concluded in AO 94-32A that imposing the costs of a 

QDRO determination solely on the participant (or alternate payee) seeking the QDRO, rather than the 

plan as a whole, would violate ERISA.

Since the issuance of AO 94-32A, the Department has had an opportunity to review the Act and the 

opinion in the context of a broader array of plan expense allocation issues raised in the course of 

investigations. On the basis of this review, the Department has determined that neither the analyses 

or conclusions set forth in that opinion are legally compelled by the language of the statute. Except 

for the few instances in which ERISA specifically addresses the imposition of expenses on individual 

participants, the statute places few constraints on how expenses are allocated among plan participants. 

(Second) of Trusts §183.

8

See Advisory Opinion No. 2000-10A.

-3-

77 Appendix A
In this regard, the same principles applicable to determining the method of allocating expenses among 

all participants, as discussed above, apply to determining the permissibility of allocating specific 

expenses to the account of an individual participant, rather than the plan as a whole (i.e., among all 

participants).9

Examples of Specific Plan Expenses

Hardship Withdrawals. Some plans may provide for the allocation of administrative expenses 

attendant to hardship withdrawal distributions to the participant who seeks the withdrawal. ERISA 

does not specifically preclude the allocation of reasonable expenses attendant to hardship withdrawals 

to the account of the participant or beneficiary seeking the withdrawal.

Calculation of Benefits Payable under Different Plan Distribution Options. Some defined 

contribution plans may charge participants for a calculation of the benefits payable under the different 

distribution options available under the plan (e.g., joint and survivor annuity, lump sum, single life 

annuity, etc.). ERISA does not specifically preclude the allocation of reasonable expenses attendant to 

the calculation of benefits payable under different distribution options available under the plan to the 

account of the participant or beneficiary seeking the information.

Benefit Distributions. Some plans provide for the imposition of benefit distribution charges on 

the participant to whom the distribution is being made. These charges may be assessed for benefit 

distributions paid on a periodic basis (e.g., monthly check writing expenses). ERISA does not 

specifically preclude the allocation of reasonable expenses attendant to the distribution of benefits to 

the account of the participant or beneficiary seeking the distribution.

Accounts of Separated Vested Participants. Some plans, with respect to which the plan sponsor 

generally pays the administrative expenses of the plan, provide for the assessment of administrative 

expenses against participants who have separated from employment. In general, it is permissible 

to charge the reasonable expenses of administering a plan to the individual accounts of the plan’s 

participants and beneficiaries. Nothing in Title I of ERISA limits the ability of a plan sponsor to pay 

only certain plan expenses or only expenses on behalf of certain plan participants. In the latter case, 

such payments by a plan sponsor on behalf of certain plan participants are equivalent to the plan 

sponsor providing an increased benefit to those employees on whose behalf the expenses are paid. 

Therefore, plans may charge vested separated participant accounts the account’s share (e.g., pro rata or 

per capita) of reasonable plan expenses, without regard to whether the accounts of active participants 

are charged such expenses and without regard to whether the vested separated participant was 

afforded the option of withdrawing the funds from his or her account or the option to roll the funds 

over to another plan or individual retirement account.

Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) and Qualified Medical Child Support Order 

(QMCSOs) Determinations. ERISA does not, in our view, preclude the allocation of reasonable 

expenses attendant to QDRO or QMCSO determinations to the account of the participant or beneficiary 

9

The views expressed herein supersede the views expressed in AO 94-32A. 

-4-

Appendix A 78
seeking the determination.10

It should be noted that, pursuant to 29 CFR § 2520.102-3(l), plans are required to include in the 

Summary Plan Description a summary of any provisions that may result in the imposition of a fee or 

charge on a participant or beneficiary, or the individual account thereof, the payment of which is a 

condition to the receipt of benefits under the plan. In addition, § 2520.102-3(l) provides that Summary 

Plan Descriptions must include a statement identifying the circumstances that may result in the “ . . . 

offset, [or] reduction . . . of any benefits that a participant or beneficiary might otherwise reasonably 

expect the plan to provide on the basis of the description of benefits . . .” These requirements are 

intended to ensure that participants and beneficiaries are apprised of fees and charges that may affect 

their benefit entitlements.

Questions concerning the information contained in this Bulletin may be directed to the Division of 

Fiduciary Interpretations, Office of Regulations and Interpretations, (202)693-8510.

10See footnote 9.

-5-

79 Appendix A

Appendix B

ERISA

Advisory Opinion Procedure
The following first appeared in the Federal Register, Volume 41, No. 168, pg. 36281. 

August 27, 1976

ERISA Procedure 76-1 For ERISA Advisory Opinions

It is the practice of the Department of Labor to answer inquiries of individuals or 

organizations affected, directly or indirectly, by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 

of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-406, hereinafter the Act) as to their status under the Act and as to the effect 

of certain acts and transactions. The answers to such inquiries are categorized as information 

letters and advisory opinions. This ERISA procedure describes the general procedures of 

the Department in issuing information letters and advisory opinions under the Act, and is 

designed to promote efficient handling of inquiries and to facilitate prompt responses.

Section 7 of this procedure is reserved and will set forth the procedures to be followed 

to obtain an advisory opinion relating to prohibited transactions and common definitions, 

such as whether a person is a party in interest and a disqualified person. In general, this 

section will incorporate a revenue procedure to be published by the Internal Revenue Service.

SEC 1. Purpose. The purpose of this ERISA Procedure is to describe the general 

procedures of the Department of Labor in issuing information letters and advisory opinions 

to individuals and organizations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 

1974 (Pub. L. 93-406), hereinafter referred to as the Act. This ERISA Procedure also informs 

individuals and organizations, and their authorized representatives, where they may direct 

requests for information letters and advisory opinions, and outlines procedures to be followed 

in order to promote efficient handling of their inquiries.

SEC 2. General Practice. It is the practice of the Department to answer inquiries 

of individuals and organizations, whenever appropriate, and in the interest of sound 

administration of the Act, as to their status under the Act and as to the effects of their acts 

or transactions. One of the functions of the Department is to issue information letters and 

advisory opinions in such matters.

SEC 3. Definitions. .01 An information letter is a written statement issued either 

by the Pension and Welfare Benefit Programs (Office of Employee Benefits Security), U.S. 

Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. or a Regional Office or an Area Office of the LaborManagement Services Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, that does no more than 

call attention to a well-established interpretation or principle of the Act, without applying 

it to a specific factual situation. An information letter may be issued to any individual or 

organization when the nature of the request from the individual or the organization suggests 

Appendix B 82
that it is seeking general information, or where the request does not meet all the requirements 

of section 6 or section 7 of this procedure, and it is believed that such general information will 

assist the individual or organization.

.02 An advisory opinion is a written statement issued to an individual or organization, 

or to the authorized representative of such individual or organization, by the 

Administrator of Pension and Welfare Benefit Programs or his delegate, that interprets 

and applies the Act to a specific factual situation. Advisory opinions are issued only by 

the Administrator of Pension and Welfare Benefit Programs or his delegate.

.03 Individuals and organizations are those persons described in section 4 of this 

procedure.

SEC 4. Individuals and Organizations Who May Request Advisory Opinions or Information 

Letters. .01 Any individual or organization affected directly or indirectly, by the Act may 

request an information letter or an advisory opinion from the Department.

.02 A request by or for an individual or organization must be signed by the individual 

or organization, or by the authorized representative of such individual or organization. 

See section 7.03 of this procedure.

SEC 5. Discretionary Authority to Render Advisory Opinions. .01 The Department will 

issue advisory opinions involving the interpretation of the application of one or more sections 

of the Act, regulations promulgated under the Act, interpretive bulletins, or exemptions issued 

by the Department to a specific factual situation. Generally, advisory opinions will be issued 

by the Department only with respect to prospective transactions (i.e., a transaction which will 

be entered into). Moreover, there are certain areas where, because of the inherently factual 

nature of the problem involved, or because the subject of the request for opinion is under 

investigation for a violation of the Act, the Department ordinarily will not issue advisory 

opinions. Generally, an advisory opinion will not be issued on alternative courses of proposed 

transactions, or on hypothetical situations, or where all parties involved are not sufficiently 

identified and described, or where material facts or details of the transaction are omitted.

.02 The Department ordinarily will not issue advisory opinions relating to the 

following sections of the Act:

.02(a) Section 3(18), relating to whether certain consideration constitutes adequate 

consideration;

.02(b) Section 3(26), relating to whether the valuation of any asset is at current value;

83 Appendix B
.02(c) Section 3(27), relating to whether the valuation of any asset is at present value;

.02(d) Section 102(a)(1), relating to whether a summary plan description is written in a 

manner calculated to be understood by the average participant;

.02(e) Section 103(a)(3)(A), relating to whether the financial statements and schedules 

required to be included in the Annual Report are presented fairly in conformity with 

generally accepted accounting principles applied on a consistent basis;

.02(f) Section 103(b)(1), relating to whether a matter must be included in a financial 

statement in order to fully and fairly present the financial statement of the plan; 

.02(g) Section 202 (other than section 202(a)(3) and (b)(1)) relating to minimum 

participation standards;

.02(h) Section 203 (other than sections 202(a)(3)(B), (b)(1) (flush language), (b)(2), (b)(3)

(A);

.02(i) Section 204 of the Act (other than sections 204(b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(A), (C), (D), (E)), 

relating to benefit accrual requirements;

.02(j) Section 205(e), relating to the period during which a participant may elect in 

writing not to receive a joint and survivor annuity;

.02(k) Section 208, relating to mergers and consolidation of plans or transfer of plan 

assets; 

.02(l) Section 209(a)(1), relating to whether the report required by section 209(a)(1) is 

sufficient to inform the employee of his accrued benefits under the plan, etc.;

.02(m) Sections 302 through 305, relating to minimum funding standards;

.02(n) Section 403(c)(1), relating to the purposes for which plan assets must be held;

.02(o) Section 404(a), relating to fiduciary duties as applied to particular conduct; and, 

.02(p) Section 407(a)(2) and (3) and (c)(1), relating to fair market value, as applied to 

whether the value of any particular security or real property constitutes fair market 

value.

Appendix B 83
This list is not all inclusive and the Department may decline to issue advisory opinions 

relating to other sections of the Act whenever warranted by the facts and circumstances of a 

particular case. The Department may, when it is deemed appropriate and in the best interest 

of sound administration of the Act, issue information letters calling attention to established 

principles under the Act, even though the request that was submitted was for an advisory 

opinion.

.03 Pending the adoption of regulations (either temporary or final) involving the 

interpretation of the application of a provision of the Act, consideration will be given to 

the issuance of advisory opinions relating to such provisions of the Act only under the 

following conditions:

.03(a) If an inquiry presents an issue on which the answer seems to be clear from the 

application of the provisions of the Act to the facts described, the advisory opinion will 

be issued in accordance with the procedures contained herein. 

.03(b) If an inquiry presents an issue on which the answer seems reasonably certain but 

not entirely free from doubt, an advisory opinion will be issued only if it is established 

to the satisfaction of the Department, that a business emergency requires an advisory 

opinion or that unusual hardship to the plan or its participants and beneficiaries will 

result from failure to obtain an advisory opinion. In any case in which the individual 

or organization believes that a business emergency exists or that an unusual hardship 

to the plan or its participants and beneficiaries will result from the failure to obtain 

an advisory opinion, the individual or organization should submit with the request 

a separate letter setting forth the facts necessary for the Department to make a 

determination in this regard. In this connection, the Department will not deem a 

business emergency to result from circumstances within the control of the individual 

or organization such as, for example, scheduling within an inordinately short time the 

closing date of a transaction or a meeting of the Board of Directors or the shareholders 

of a corporation. 

.03(c) If an inquiry presents an issue that cannot be reasonably resolved prior to the 

issuance of a regulation, an advisory opinion will not be issued. 

.04 The Department ordinarily will not issue advisory opinions on the form or effect in 

operation of a plan, fund, or program (or a particular provision or provisions thereof) 

subject to Title I of the Act. For example, the Department will not issue an advisory 

opinion on whether a plan satisfies the requirements of Parts 2 and 3 of Title I of the 

Act.

84 Appendix B
SEC 6. Instructions To Individuals and Organizations Requesting Advisory Opinions From 

the Department. .01 If an advisory opinion is desired, a request should be submitted to:

U.S. Department of Labor

Employee Benefits Security Administration

Office of Regulations and Interpretations

200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Suite N-5655

Washington, DC 20210

.02 A request for an advisory opinion must contain the following information:

.02(a) The name and type of plan or plans (e.g., pension, profit-sharing, or welfare 

plan); the Employer Identification Number (EIN); the Plan Number (PN) used by the 

plan in reporting to the Department of Labor on Form EBS-1 or a copy of the first two 

pages of the most recent Form EBS-1 filed with the Department. 

.02(b) A detailed description of the act or acts or transaction or transactions with 

respect to which an advisory opinion is requested. Where the request pertains to only 

one step of a larger integrated act or transaction, the facts, circumstances, etc., must be 

submitted with respect to the entire transaction. In addition, a copy of all documents 

submitted must be included in the individual’s or organization’s statement and not 

merely incorporated by reference, and must be accompanied by an analysis of their 

bearing on the issue or issues, specifying the pertinent provisions. 

.02(c) A discussion of the issue or issues presented by the act or acts or transaction or 

transactions which should be addressed in the advisory opinion. 

.02(d) If the individual or organization is requesting a particular advisory opinion, the 

requesting party must furnish an explanation of the grounds for the request, together 

with a statement of relevant supporting authority. Even though the individual or 

organization is urging no particular determination with regard to a proposed or 

prospective act or acts or transaction or transactions, the party requesting the ruling 

must state such party’s views as to the results of the proposed act or acts or transaction 

or transactions and furnish a statement of relevant authority to support such views. 

.03 A request for an advisory opinion by or for an individual or organization must 

be signed by the individual or organization or by the individual’s or organization’s 

authorized representative. If the request is signed by a representative of an individual 

or organization, or the representative may appear before the Department in connection 

Appendix B 85
with the request, the request must include a statement that the representative is 

authorized to represent the individual or organization.

.04 A request for an advisory opinion that does not comply with all the provisions of 

this procedure will be acknowledged, and the requirements that have not been met will 

be noted. Alternatively, at the discretion of the Department, the Department will issue 

an information letter to the individual or organization.

.05 If the individual or organization or the authorized representative, desires a 

conference in the event the Department contemplates issuing an adverse advisory 

opinion, such desire should be stated in writing when filing the request or soon 

thereafter in order that the Department may evaluate whether in the sole discretion 

of the Department, a conference should be arranged and at what stage of the 

consideration a conference would be most helpful.

.06 It is the practice of the Department to process requests for information letters and 

advisory opinions in regular order and as expeditiously as possible. Compliance with 

a request for consideration of a particular matter ahead of its regular order, or by a 

specified time, tends to delay the disposition of other matters. Requests for processing 

ahead of the regular order, made in writing (submitted with the request or subsequent 

thereto) and showing clear need for such treatment, will be given consideration as 

the particular circumstances warrant. However, no assurance can be given that any 

letter will be processed by the time requested. The Department will not consider a 

need for expedited handling to arise if the request shows such need has resulted from 

circumstances within the control of the person making the request.

.07 An individual or organization, or the authorized representative desiring to obtain 

information relating to the status of his or her request for an advisory opinion may 

do so by contacting the Office of Regulatory Standards and Exceptions, Pension and 

Welfare Benefit Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C.

SEC. 7. Instructions to Individuals and Organizations Requesting Advisory Opinions 

Relating to Prohibited Transactions and Common Definitions. .01 [Reserved]

.02 [Reserved]

.03 [Reserved]

SEC. 8. Conferences at Department of Labor. If a conference has been requested and 

the Department determines that a conference is necessary or appropriate, the individual or 

86 Appendix B
organization or the authorized representative will be notified of the time and place of the 

conference. A conference will normally be scheduled only when the Department in its sole 

discretion deems it will be necessary or appropriate in deciding the case. If conferences are 

being arranged with respect to more than one request for an opinion letter involving the same 

individual or organization, they will be so scheduled as to cause the least inconvenience to the 

individual or organization.

SEC. 9. Withdrawal of Requests. The individual or organization’s request for an 

advisory opinion may be withdrawn at any time prior to receipt of notice that the Department 

intends to issue an adverse opinion, or the issuance of an opinion. Even though a request is 

withdrawn, all correspondence and exhibits will be retained by the Department and will not 

be returned to the individual or organization.

SEC. 10. Effect of Advisory Opinion. An advisory opinion is an opinion of the 

Department as to the application of one or more sections of the Act, regulations promulgated 

under the Act, interpretive bulletins, or exemptions. The opinion assumes that all material 

facts and representations set forth in the request are accurate, and applies only to the 

situation described therein. Only the parties described in the request for opinion may rely 

on the opinion, and they may rely on the opinion only to the extent that the request fully 

and accurately contains all the material facts and representations necessary to issuance of the 

opinion and the situation conforms to the situation described in the request for opinion.

SEC. 11. Effect of Information Letters. An information letter issued by the Department is 

informational only and is not binding on the Department with respect to any particular factual 

situation.

SEC. 12. Public Inspection. .01 Advisory opinions shall be open to public inspection 

at the Public Disclosure Room, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20216.

.02 Background files (including the request for an advisory opinion, correspondence 

between the Department and the individual or organization requesting the advisory 

opinion) shall be available upon written request. Background files may be destroyed 

after three years from the date of issuance.

.03 Advisory opinions will be modified to delete references to proprietary information 

prior to disclosure. Any information considered to be proprietary should be so 

specified in a separate letter at the time of request. Other than proprietary information, 

all materials contained in the public files shall be available for inspection pursuant to 

section 12.02.

Appendix B 87
.04 The cost of search, copying and deletion of any references to proprietary 

information will be borne by the person requesting the advisory opinion or the 

background file.

SEC. 13. Effective Date. This advisory opinion procedure consists of rules of agency 

procedure and practice, and is therefore excepted under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3)(A) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act from the ordinary notice and comment provisions for agency 

rulemaking. Accordingly, the procedure is effective August 27, 1976, the date of its publication 

in the Federal Register.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of August 1976

James D. Hutchinson

Administrator of Pension and Welfare Benefit Programs

U.S. Department of Labor

[FR Doc. 76-25168 Filed 8-26-76;8:45 am]

88 Appendix B

Appendix C

IRS Sample Language

for a Qualified Domestic 

Relations Order
Appendix C - IRS Sample Language for a QDRO

The following document, which contains sample language for inclusion in a form for a QDRO and 

discussion of the sample language, was issued by the Department of the Treasury and the Internal 

Revenue Service in compliance with Congressional directives contained in the Small Business Job 

Protection Act of 1986, section 1457(a)(2). It appeared in Internal Revenue Bulletin 1997-2 at p. 49 

(Jan. 13, 1997). This document was developed in consultation with the Department of Labor and 

is reprinted here for the convenience of the reader. 

Part III - Administrative, Procedural and Miscellaneous Sample Language for a Qualified 

Domestic Relations Order Notice 97-11 

Purpose 

This Notice provides information intended to assist domestic relations attorneys, plan participants, 

spouses and former spouses of participants, and plan administrators in drafting and reviewing a 

qualified domestic relations order (“QDRO”). The Notice provides sample language that may be 

included in a QDRO relating to a plan that is qualified under § 401(a) or § 403(a) of the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 (“qualified plan” or “plan”) and that is subject to § 401(a)(13). The Notice 

also discusses a number of issues that should be considered in drafting a QDRO. A QDRO is a 

domestic relations order that provides for payment of benefits from a qualified plan to a spouse, 

former spouse, child or other dependent of a plan participant and that meets certain requirements. 

Statutory QDRO Requirements 

Section 401(a)(13)(A) of the Code provides that benefits under a qualified plan may not 

be assigned or alienated. Section 401(a)(13)(B) establishes an exception to the antialienation rule 

for assignments made pursuant to domestic relations orders that constitute QDROs within the 

meaning of § 414(p). A “domestic relations order” is defined in § 414(p)(1)(B) as any judgment, 

decree, or order (including approval of a property settlement agreement) that: (i) relates to the 

provision of child support, alimony payments, or marital property rights to a spouse, former 

spouse, child, or other dependent of a participant (ii) is made pursuant to a State domestic 

relations law (including a community property law). There is no exception to the § 401(a)(13)

(A) antialienation rule for assignments made pursuant to domestic relations orders that are not 

QDROs. 

Section 414(p)(1)(A) provides, in general, that a QDRO is a domestic relations order that 

creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee’s right, or assigns to an alternate payee 

the right, to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a 

plan, and that meets the requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3) of § 414(p). Section 414(p)(2) 

requires that a QDRO clearly specify: (A) the name and last known mailing address (if any) of 

the participant and of each alternate payee covered by the order, (B) the amount or percentage of 

the participant’s benefits to be paid by the plan to each alternate payee, or the manner in which 

that amount or percentage is to be determined, (C) the number of payments or period to which 

the order applies.

Appendix C 91
Section 414(p)(3) provides that a QDRO cannot require a plan to provide 

any type or form of benefit, or any option, not otherwise provided under the 

plan; cannot require a plan to provide increased benefits (determined on the basis 

of actuarial value); and cannot require the payment of benefits to an alternate 

payee that are required to be paid to another alternate payee under another order 

previously determined to be a QDRO. Section 414(p)(4)(A)(i) provides that a 

domestic relations order shall not be treated as failing to meet the requirements 

of § 414(p)(3)(A) (and thus will not fail to be a QDRO) solely because the order 

requires payment of benefits to an alternate payee on or after the participant’s 

earliest retirement age, even if the participant has not separated from service at 

that time. Section 414(p)(4)(B) defines earliest retirement age as the earlier of (i) the 

date on which the participant is entitled to a distribution under the plan, or (ii) the 

later of (I) the date the participant attains age 50, or (II) the earliest date on which 

the participant could begin receiving benefits under the plan if the participant 

separated from service. 

Section 414(p)(5) permits a QDRO to provide that the participant’s former 

spouse shall be treated as the participant’s surviving spouse for purposes of §§ 

401(a)(11) and 417 (relating to the right to receive survivor benefits and requirements 

concerning consent to distributions), and that any other spouse of the participant 

shall not be treated as a spouse of the participant for these purposes. An alternate 

payee is defined under § 414(p)(8) as any spouse, former spouse, child or other 

dependent of a participant who is recognized by a domestic relations order as 

having a right to receive all, or a portion of, the benefits payable under a plan with 

respect to the participant. Section 414(p)(10) provides that a plan shall not fail to 

satisfy the requirements of § 401(a), 401(k) or 403(b) solely by reason of payments 

made to an alternate payee pursuant to a QDRO. 

B. Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 

Section 1457(a)(2) of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 (“SBJPA”) 

directs the Secretary of the Treasury (“Secretary”) to develop sample language for 

inclusion in a form for a QDRO described in § 414(p)(1)(A) of the Code and §206(d)

(3)(B)(i) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) that 

meets the requirements contained in those sections, and the provisions of which 

focus attention on the need to consider the treatment of any lump sum payment, 

qualified joint and survivor annuity (“QJSA”), or qualified preretirement survivor 

annuity (“QPSA”). Accordingly, the Service and Treasury are publishing the 

discussion and sample QDRO language set forth in the Appendix to this Notice. 

Section 1457(a)(1) of the SBJPA directs the Secretary to publish sample 

language that can be included in a form that is used for a spouse to consent to a 

participant’s waiver of a QJSA or QPSA. This sample language for use in spousal 

consent forms is contained in Notice 97-10 in this Bulletin. 

92 Appendix C
C. Department of Labor Interpretive Authority 

Section 206(d)(3) of ERISA (29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)) contains QDRO 

provisions that are substantially parallel to those of § 414(p) of the Code. 

The Department of Labor has jurisdiction to interpret these provisions 

(except to the extent provided in § 401(n) of the Code) and the provisions 

governing the fiduciary duties owed with respect to domestic relations 

orders and QDROs. Section 401(n) gives the Secretary of the Treasury 

the authority to prescribe rules or regulations necessary to coordinate the 

requirements of §§ 401(a)(13) and 414(p), and the regulations issued by 

the Department of Labor thereunder, with other Code provisions. The 

Department of Labor has reviewed this Notice, including its Appendix, 

and has advised the Service and Treasury that the discussion and sample 

language are consistent with the views of the Department of Labor 

concerning the statutory requirements for QDROs. This Notice, including 

its Appendix, is not intended by the Service or Treasury to convey 

interpretations of the statutory requirements applicable to QDROs, but 

only to provide examples of language that may be (but are not required to 

be) used in drafting a QDRO that satisfies these requirements. 

II. SAMPLE LANGUAGE

The appendix to this notice has two parts. Part I discusses certain issues 

that should be considered when drafting a QDRO. Part II contains sample 

language that will assist in drafting a QDRO. Drafters who use the sample 

language will need to conform it to the terms of the retirement plan to which 

the QDRO applies, and to specify the amounts assigned and other terms 

of the QDRO so as to achieve an appropriate division of marital property 

or level of family support. A domestic relations order is not required to 

incorporate the sample language in order to satisfy the requirements for a 

QDRO, and a domestic relations order that incorporates part of the sample 

language may omit or modify other parts. 

The sample language addresses a variety of matters, but is not designed 

to address all retirement benefit issues that may arise in each domestic 

relations matter or QDRO. Further, some of the sample language, while 

helpful in facilitating the administration of a QDRO, is not necessarily 

required for the order to satisfy the requirements for a QDRO. Alternative 

formulations would be permissible for use in drafting orders that meet the 

statutory requirements for a QDRO. 

III. OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”) recently 

published a booklet entitled Divorce Orders & PBGC, which discusses the 

special QDRO rules that apply for plans that have been terminated and are 

trusteed by PBGC, and provides model QDROs for use with those plans. 

Appendix C 93
This publication may be obtained by calling PBGC’s Customer Service 

Center at 1-800-400-PBGC or via the PBGC Web site at http://www.pbgc.

gov

Additional information on the rights of participants and spouses to 

plan benefits can be found in a two-booklet set published by the Service, 

entitled Looking Out for #2. These booklets discuss retirement benefit 

choices under a defined contribution or a defined benefit plan, and may 

be obtained by calling the Internal Revenue Service at 1-800-TAX-FORM, 

and asking for Publication 1565 (defined contribution plans) or Publication 

1566 (defined benefit plans). 

IV COMMENTS

The Service invites the public to comment on the QDRO discussion 

and sample language included in the Appendix to this Notice, and 

welcomes suggestions concerning possible additional sample language. 

Comments may be submitted to the Internal Revenue Service at 

CC:DOM:CORP:R (Notice 97-11), Room 5226, Internal Revenue Service, 

POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044. Alternatively, 

taxpayers may hand-deliver comments between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 

p.m. to CC:DOM:CORP:R (Notice 97-11), Courier’s desk, Internal Revenue 

Service, 1111 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C., or may submit 

comments electronically via the IRS Web Site at http://www.irs.ustreas.

gov/prod/tax_regs/comments.html

DRAFTING INFORMATION 

The principal authors of this Notice are Diane S. Bloom of the 

Employee Plans Division and Susan M. Lennon of the Office of the 

Associate Chief Counsel (Employee Benefits and Exempt Organizations); 

however, other personnel from the Service and Treasury contributed to its 

development. For further information regarding this Notice, please contact 

the Employee Plans Division’s taxpayer assistance telephone service at 

202.622.6074/6075, between the hours of 1:30 p.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern Time, 

Monday through Thursday. Alternatively, please call Ms. Bloom at (202) 

622-6214 or Ms. Lennon at (202) 622-4606. Questions concerning QDROs 

may be addressed to Susan G. Lahne of the Pension and Welfare Benefits 

Administration, Department of Labor, at 202.219.7461.* These telephone 

numbers are not toll-free. 

*

The Office of Regulations and Interpretations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, 

Department of Labor, at (202) 693-8500.

94 Appendix C
Appendix

Part I of this Apendix discusses certain issues that are relevant in drafting a qualified 

domestic relations order (“QDRO”). Part II of this Appendix contains sample language 

that can be used in a QDRO. However, the discussion and sample language do not 

attempt to address every issue that may arise in drafting a QDRO. Alos, some parts of 

the discussion are not relevant to all situations and some parts of the sample language 

are not appropriate for all QDROs. In formulating a particular QDRO, it is important 

that the drafters tailor the QDRO to the needs of the parties and ensure that the QDRO 

is consistent with the terms of the retirement plan to which the QDRO applies.

PART I. DISCUSSION OF QDRO REQUIREMENTS AND RELATED ISSUES

In order to be recognized as a QDRO, an order must first be a “domestic 

relations order.” A domestic relations order is any judgment, decree or order (including 

approval of a property settlement) which (i) relates to the provision of child support, 

alimony payments or marital property rights to a spouse, former spouse, child or other 

dependent of the plan participant, and (ii) is made pursuant to a State domestic relations 

law (including a community property law). A State authority must actually issue an 

order or formally approve a propsed property settlement before it can be a domestic 

relations order. A property settlement signed by a participant and the participant’s 

former spuse or a draft order to which both parties consent is not a domestic relations 

order untl the State authority has adopted it as an order or formally approved it and 

made it part of the domestic relations proceeding.

The sample language in Part II assumes that the QDRO applies to one qualified 

plan and one alternate payee. If a QDRO is intended to cover more than one qualified 

plan or alternate payee, the QDRO should clearly state which qualified plan and which 

alternate payee each provision is intended to address.

The terms of a qualified plan must be set forth in a written document. The 

plan must also establish written QDRO procedures to be used by the plan aministrator 

in determining whether a domestic relations order is a QDRO and in administering 

QDROs. The plan administrator maintains copies of the plan document and the plan’s 

QDRO procedures. If the plan is required under Federal law to have a summary plan 

description, or “SPD,” the plan administrator will also have a copy of the SPD. The 

information in these documents is helpful in drafting a QDRO. The drafter to of a 

QDRO may wish to obtain copies of these doucments before drafting a QDRO.

A. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTICIPATING AND ALTERNATE PAYEE

A QDRO must clearly specify the name and last known mailing address (if any) 

of the participant and of each alternate payee covered by the QDRO. In the event that 

an alternate payee is a minor or legally incompetent, the QDRO should also include the 

name and address of the alternate payee’s legal representative. A QDRO can have more 

than one alternate payee, such as a former spouse and a child.

Appendix C 95
The “participant” is the individual whose benefits under the plan are 

being divided by the QDRO. Thee participant’s spouse (or former spouse, 

child, or other dependent) who receives some or all of the plan’s benefits 

wwith respect to the particpant under the terms of the QDRO is the “alternate 

payee.”

B. IDENTIFICATION OF RETIREMENT PLAN

A QDRO must clearly identify each plan tot which the QDRO applies. 

A QDRO can satisfy this requirement by stating the full name of the plan as 

provided in the plan document.

C. AMOUNT OF BENEFITS TO BE PAID TO ALTERNATE PAYEE

A QDRO must clearly specify the amount or percentatge of the 

particpant’s benefits in the plan that is assigned to each alternate payee, or 

the manner in which the amount or percentage is to be determined. Many 

factors should be taken into account in determinig which benefits to assign to 

an alternate payee and how these benefits are to be assigned. The following 

discussion highlights some of these factors. Because of the complexity and 

variety of the factors that should be considered, and the need to tailor the 

assignments of benefits under a QDRO to the individual circumstances of the 

parties, specific sample language regarding the assingment of benefits has not 

been provided in Part II of this Appendix.

1. Types of Benefits

In order to decide how to divide benefits under a QDRO, the drafter 

first should determine the types of benefits the plan provides. Most benefits 

provided by qualified plans can be classified as (1) retirement benefits that 

are paid during the participant’s life and (2) survivor benefits that are paid to 

beneficiaries after the particpant’s death. Generally, a QDRO can assign all or 

a portion of each of these types of benefits to an alternate payee. The drafters 

of a QDRO should coordinate the assignment of these types of benefits. QDRO 

drafters should also consider how the benefits divided under the QDRO 

may be affected, under the plan, by the death of either the participant or the 

alternate payee.

2. Types of Qualified Plans

Another important factor to consider in the drating of a QDRO is the 

type of plan to which the QDRO will apply. As discussed below, the type of 

plan may affect the types of benefits available for assignment, how the parties 

choose to assign the benefits, and other matters.

There are two basic types of qualified plans to which QDROs apply: 

defined benefit plans and defined contribution plans.

96 Appendix C
a. Defined Benefit Plans

A “defined benefit plan” promises to pay each participant a specific 

benefit at retirement. The basic retirement benefits are usually based on a 

formula that takes into account factors such as the number of years a particpant 

has worked for the employer and the participant’s salary. The basic retirement 

benefits are generally expressed in the form of periodic payments for the 

participant’s life beginning at the plan’s normal retirement age. This stream of 

periodic payments is generally known as an “annuity.” There are special rules 

that apply if the participant is married; these rules are discussed in greater 

detail in section E below. A plan may also provide that these retirement 

benefits may be paid in other forms, such as a lump sum payment.

b. Defined Contribution Plans

A “defined contribution plan” is a retirement plan that provides for an 

individual account for each participant. The participant’s benefits are based 

solely on the amount contributed to the participant’s account, and any income, 

expenses, gains and losses, and any forfeitures of accounts of other particpants 

which may be allocated to such participant’s account. Examples of defined 

contribution plans include a profit sharing plan (including a “401(k)” plan), an 

employee stock ownership plan (an “ESOP”) and a money purchase pension 

plan. Defined contribution plans commonly permit retirement benefits to be 

paid in the form of a lump sum payment of the participant’s entire account 

balance.

3. Approaches to Dividing Retirement Benefits

There are two common approaches to dividing retirement benefits in a 

QDRO: one awards a separate interest in the retirement benefits to the alternate 

payee, and the other allows the alternate payee to share in the payent of the 

retirement benefits. In drafting a QDRO using either of these approaches, 

consideration should be given to factors such as whether the plan is a defined 

benefit plan or defined contribution plan, and the purpose of the QDRO (such 

as whether the QDRO is meant to provide spousal support or child support, 

or to divide marital property.)

a. Separate Interest Approach

A QDRO that creates a “separate interest” divides the participant’s 

benefits into two separate parts: one for the participant and one for the 

alternate payee. Subject to the terms of the plan and as discussed in more 

detail below, a QDRO may provide that the alternate payee can determine 

the form in which his or her benefits are paid and when benefit payments 

commence. If benefits are allocated under the separate interest approach, the 

drafters of a QDRO should take into account certain issues depending on the 

type of plan.

Appendix C 97
(1) Issues Relevant to Defined Benefit Plans

The treatment of subsidies provided by a plan and the treatment of 

future increases in benefits due to increases in the participant’s compensation, 

additional years of service, or changes in the plan’s provisions are among the 

matters that should be considered when drafting a QDRO that uses the separate 

interest approach to allocate benefits under a defined benefit plan.

Subsidies. Defined benefit plans may promise to pay benefits at various 

times and in alternative forms. Benefits paid at certain times or in certain forms 

may have a greater actuarial value than the basic retirement benefits payable at 

normal retirement age. When one form of benefit has a greater actuarial value 

than another form, the difference in value is often called a subsidy. Plans usually 

provide that a participant must meet specific eligibility requirements, such as 

working for a minimum number of years for the employer that maintains the 

plan, in order to receive the subsidy.

For example, a defined benefit plan may offer an “early retirement 

subsidy” to employees who retire before the plan’s normal retirement age but 

after having worked for a specific number of years for the employer maintaining 

the plan. In some cases, this subsidized benefit provides payments in the 

form of an annuity that pays the same annual amount as would be paid if the 

payments commenced instead at the normal retirement age. The subsidy may 

be available only for certain forms of benefit.

A QDRO may award to the alternate payee all or part of the participant’s 

basic retirement benefits. A QDRO can also address the disposition of any 

subsidy to which the participant may become entitled after the QDRO has been 

entered.

Future Increases in the Participant’s Benefits. A participant’s basic 

retirement benefits may increase due to circumstances that occur after a QDRO 

has been entered, such as increases in salary, crediting of additional years of 

service, or amendments to the plan’s provisions, including amendments to 

provide cost of living adjustments. The treatment of such benefit increases 

should be considered when drafting a QDRO using the separate interest 

approach.

(2) Issues Relevant to Defined Contribution Plans

Investment of the amount assigned to the alternate payee when the account 

is invested in more than one investment vehicle and division of any future 

allocation of contributions or forfeitures to the participant’s account are among 

the matters that should be considered when drafting a QDRO that allocates the 

alternate payee a separate interest under a defined contribution plan.

Investment Choices. The participant’s account may be invested in more than 

one investment fund. If the plan provides for participant-directed investment 

98 Appendix C
of the participant’s account, consideration should be given to how the alternate 

payee’s interest will be invested.

Future Allocations. A participant’s account balance may later increase due to 

the allocation of contriutions or forfeitures after the QDRO has been entered. 

A QDRO may provide that the amounts asssigned to the alternate payee will 

include a portion of such future allocations. 

b. Shared Payment Approach

A QDRO may use the “shared payment” approach, under which benefit 

payments from the plan are split between the participant and the alternate 

payee. The alternate payee receives payments under this approach only when 

the participant receives payments. A QDRO may provide that the alternate 

payee will commence receiving benefit payments when the participant begins 

receiving payments or at a later stated date, and that the alternate payee will 

cease to share in the benefit payments at a stated date (or upon a stated event, 

provided that adequate notice is given to the plan). In splitting the benefit 

payments, the QDRO may award the alternate payee either a percentage or 

a dollar amount of each of the participant’s benefit payments; in either case, 

the amount awarded cannot exceed the amount of each payment to which the 

participant is entitled under the plan. If a QDRO awards a percentage of the 

participant’s benefit payments (rather than a dollar amount), then, unless the 

QDRO provides otherwise, thee alternate payee generally will automatically 

receive a share of any future subsidy or other increase in the participant’s 

benefits.

D. FORM AND COMMENCEMENT OF PAYMENT TO ALTERNATE 

PAYEE

QDRO drafters should take into account certain issues that may arise in 

connection with the alternate payee’s choice of a form of benefit payments and 

the date on which payment will commence.

1. Separate Interest Approach

a. Form of Alternate Payee’s Benefit Payments

A QDRO either may specify a particular form in which payments are 

to be made to the alternate payee or may provide that the alternate payee may 

choose a form of benefit from among the options available to the participant. 

However, Federal law provides that the alternate payee cannot receive payments 

in the form of a joint and survivor annuity with respect to the alternate payee 

and his or her subsequent spouse.

The choice of the form of benefits should take into account the period over 

which payments will be made. For example, if the alternate payee elects to 

Appendix C 99
receive a lump sum payment, no further payments will be made by the plan 

with respect to the alternate payee’s interest.

Any decision concerning the form of benefit should take into account the 

difference, if any, in the actuarial value of different benefit forms available 

under the plan. For example, as discussed above, a plan might provide an early 

retirement subsidy that is available only for payment in certain forms.

In addition, the forms of benefit available to the alternate payee may be limited 

by § 401(a)(9) of the Code, which specifies the date by which benefit payments 

from a qualified plan must commence and limits the period over which the 

beneefit payments may be made. Section 1.401(a)(9)-1, Q&A H-4, of the 

Proposed Income Tax Regulations addresses the application of the required 

minimum distribution rules of § 401(a)(9) to payments to an alternate payee. 

Thee proposed regulation limits the period over which benefits may be paid 

with respect to the alternate payee’s interest. For example, the proposed 

regulation provides that distribution of the alternate payee’s separate 

intereest will not satisfy § 401(a)(9)(A)(ii) of the Code if the separate interest 

is distributed over the joint lives of the alternate payee and a designated 

(other than the participant).

b. Commencement of Benefit Payments to Alternate Payee

Under the separate interest approach, the alternate payee may begin 

receiving benefits at a different time than the participant. A QDRO either may 

specify a time at which payments are to commence to the alternate payee or may 

provide that the alternate payee can elect a time when benefits will commence 

in accordance with the terms of the plan. In two circumstances, an alternate 

payee who is given a separate interest may begin receiving his or her separate 

benefit before the participant is eligible to begin receiving payments. First, 

Federal law provides that benefit payments to the alternate payee may begin 

as soon as the participant attains his or her earliest retirement age. Federal 

law defines “earliest retirement age” as the earlier of (i) the date on which the 

participant is entitled to a distribution under the plan, or (ii) the later of (I) 

the date the participant attains age 50, or (II) the earliest date on which the 

participant could begin receiving benefits under the plan if the participant 

separated from service. Second, the retirement plan may (but is not required 

to) allow payments to begin to an alternate payee at a date before the earliest 

retirement date.

2. Shared Payment Approach

As indicated above, under the shared payment approach, benefit 

payments are split between the participant and the alternate payee. The 

alternate payee receives payments in the same form as the participant. Further, 

payments to the alternate payee do not commence before the participant has 

begun to receive benefits. Payments to the alternate payee can cease at any 

time stated in the QDRO but do not continue after payments with respect to 

100 Appendix C
the eparticipant cease. As noted above, a QDRO must state the number of 

payments or the period to which the order applies.

E. SURVIVOR BENEFITS AND TREATMENT OF FORMER SPOUSE AS 

PARTICIPANT’S SPOUSE

Survivor benefits include both benefits payable to surviving spouses 

and other benefits that are payable after the participant’s death. These benefits 

can be awarded to an alternate payee. In determining the assignment of survivor 

benefits, QDRO drafters should take into account that benefits awarded to the 

alternate payee under a QDRO will not be available to a subsequent spouse of 

the participant or to another beneficiary. QDRO drafters may consult with the 

plan administrator for information on the survivor benefits provided under the 

plan.

A QDRO may provide for treatment of a former spouse of a participant 

as the participant’s spouse with respect to all or a portion of the spousal survivor 

benefits that must be provided under Federal law. The following discussion 

explains the spousal survivor benefits that must be offered under a plan, and 

identifies issues that should be considered in determining whether to treat the 

alternate payee as the participant’s spouse.

Only a spouse or former spouse of the participant can be treated as a 

spouse under a QDRO. A child or other dependent who is an alternate payee 

under a QDRO cannot be treated as the spouse of a participant.

Retirement plans generally need not provide the special survivor 

benefits to the participant’s surviving spouse unless the participant is married 

for at least one year. If the retirement plan to which the QDRO relates contains 

such a one-year marriage requirement, then the QDRO cannot require that the 

alternate payee be treated as the participant’s spouse if the marriage lasted for 

less than one year.

1. Qualified Joint and Survivor Annuity

Federal law generally requires that defined benefit plans and certain 

defined contribution plans pay retirement benefits to participants who were 

married on the participant’s annuity starting date (this is the first day of the 

first period for which an amount is payable to the participant) in a special 

form called a qualifed joint and survivor annuity, or QJSA. Under a QJSA, 

retirement payments are made monthly (or at other regular intervals) to the 

participant for his or her lifetirme; after the participant dies, the plan pays the 

participant’surviving spouse an amount each mothe (or other regular interval) 

that is at least one half of the retirement benefit that was paid to the participant. 

At any time that benefits are permitted to commence under the plan, a QJSA 

must be offered that commences at the same time and that has an actuarial 

value that is at least as great as any other form of benefit payable under the 

plan at the same time. A married participant can choose to receive retirement 

Appendix C 101
benefits in a form other than a QJSA if the participant;s spouse agrees in writing 

to that choice.

2. Qualified Preretirement Survivor Annuity

Federal law generally requires that defined benefit plans and certain 

defined contribution plans pay a monthly survivor benefit to surviving spouse 

for the spouse’s life when a married particpant dies prior to the participan’ts 

annuity starting date, to the extent the participant’s benefit is nonforfeitable 

under the terms of the plan at the time of his or her death. This benefit is 

called a qualified preretirement survivor annuity, or QPSA. As a general rule, 

an individual loses the right to the QPSA survivor benefits when he or she is 

divorced from the participant. However, if a former spouse is treated as the 

participant’s surviving spouse under a QDRO, the former spouse is eligible to 

receive the QPSA unless the former spouse consents to the waiver of the QPSA. 

If the spouse deos not waivee the QPSA, the plan allow the spouse to receive 

the value of the QPSA in a form other than an annuity.

3. Defined Contribution Plans Not Subject to the QJSA or QPSA 

Requirements

Those defined contribution plans that are not required to pay benefits 

to married participants in the form of a QJSA or a QPSA are required by 

Federal law to pay the balance remaining in the participant’s account after 

the participant dies to the participant’s surviving spouse. If the spouse gives 

written consent, the particpant can direct that upon his or her death the account 

will be paid to a beneficiary other than the spouse, for example, the couple’s 

children.

4. Alternate Payee Treated as Spouse

A QDRO may provide that an alternate payee who is a former spouse 

of the particpant will be treated as the particpan’ts spouse for some or all of the 

benefits payable upon the participant’s death, so that the alternate payee will 

receive benefits provided to a spouse under the plan. To the extent that a former 

spouse is to be treated under the plan as the particpant’s spouse pursuant to 

a QDRO, any subsequent spouse of the participant cannot be treated as the 

participant’s surviving spouse. Thus, QDRO drafters should consider the 

potential impact of designating a former spouse as the participan’ts spouse 

on the disposition of survivor benefits among the former spouse and any 

subsequent spouse of the participant, as well as the impact on children or any 

other beneficiaries designated by the participant in accordance with the terms 

of the plan.

In determining the portion of the participant’s benefits for which the 

altherantae payee is treated as the spouse, the drafters should take into account 

the manner in which benefits are otherwise divided under the QDRO. In 

particular, consideration shou.ld be given to whether the formula for dividing 

102 Appendix C
the participant’s benefits for this purpose should be coordinated with the 

formula otherwise used for dividng the benefits.

Under a defined benefit plan, or a defined contribution plan that is 

subjet to the QJSA and QPSA requirements, to the extent the former spouse is 

treated as the current spouse, the former spouse must consent to payment of 

retirement benefits in a form other than a QJSA or to the participant’s waiver of 

the QPSA. For example, in a defined benefit plan, the participant would not be 

able to elect to receive a lump sum payment of the retirement benefits for which 

the alternate payee is treated as the participant’s spouse unless the alternate 

payee consents. Similarly, the former spouse’s consent might be required for 

any loan to the participant from the plan that is secured by his or her retirement 

benefits. In a defined contribution plan that is not subject to the QJSA and 

QPSA requirements, to the extent the QDRO treats the former spouse as thee 

participant’s spouse under the plan, the esurvivor benefits under the plan must 

be paid to the former spouse unless he or she consents to have those benefits 

paid to someone else.

F. TAX TREATMENT OF BENEFIT PAYMENTS MADE PURSUANT TO 

A QDRO

The Federal income tax treatment of retirement benefits is governed by 

Federal law, and a QDRO canot designate who will be liable for the taxes owed 

when retirement benefits are paid. For a description of the tax consequences 

of payments to an alternate payee pursuant to a QDRO, see Internal Revenue 

Service Publication 575, Pension and Annuity Income. A local IRS office can 

provide this publication, or it may be obtained by calling 1-800-TAX-FORM.

Part II. SAMPLE LANGUAGE FOR INCLUSION IN QDRO

A. SAMPLE LANGUAGE FOR IDENTIFICATION OF PARTICIPANT 

AND ALTERNATE PAYEE

The “Participant” is [insert name of Participant]. The Participant’s 

address is [insert Participant’s address]. The Participant’s social security 

number is [insert Participant’s social security number].

The “Alternate Payee” is [insert name of Alternate Payee]. The Alternate 

Payee’s address is [insert Alternate Payee’s address]. The Alternate Payee’s 

social security number is [insert Alternate Payee’s social security number]. The 

Alternate Payee is the [describe the Alternate Payee’s relationship to Participant] 

of the Participant.

B. SAMPLE LANGUAGE FOR IDENTIFICATION OF RETIREMENT 

PLAN

This order applies to benefits under the [insert formal name of retirement 

plan] (“Plan”).

Appendix C 103
C. AMOUNT OF BENEFITS TO BE PAID TO ALTERNATE PAYEE

Instruction: The QDRO should clearly specify the amount or percentage of 

benefits assigned to the Alternate Payee or the manner in which the amount or 

percentage is to be determined, and the number of payments or period to which 

the Order applies. There are many different forms in which benefits may be 

paid from a qualified plan. Because of the diversity of factors that should be 

considered, and the need to tailor the assignment of benefits under a QDRO to 

meet the needs of the parties involved, specific sample language regarding the 

assignment of benefits has not been provided. See the discussion in Part I for 

further information.

D. SAMPLE LANGUAGE FOR FORM AND COMMENCEMENT OF 

PAYMENT TO ALTERNATE PAYEE

Instruction: Drafters using the separate interest approach may use paragraph 

1. Drafters using the shared payment approach may use paragraph 2. Drafters 

using the separate interest approach for a portion of the benefits allocated to 

the alternate payee and the shared payment approach for the remainder should 

modify the sample language to specify the benefits to which each paragraph 

provided below applies..

1. Separatee Intereest Approach

The Alternate Payee may elect to receive payment from the Plan of the 

benefits assigned to the Alternate Payee under this Order in any form in which 

such benefits may be paid under the Plan to the Participant (other than in the 

form of a joint and survivor annuity with respect to the Alternate Payee and 

his or her subsequent spouse), but only if the form elected complies with the 

minimum distribution requirements of § 401(a)(9) of the Internal Revenue 

Code. Payments to the Alternate Payee pursuant to this Order shall 

commence on any date elected by the Alternate Payee (and such election 

shall be made in accordance with the terms of the Plan), but not earlier 

than the Participant’s earlies retirement age (or such earlier date as allowed 

under the terms of the Plan), and not later than the earlier of (A) the date the 

Participant would be required to commence benefits under the terms of the 

Plan or (B) the latest date permitted by § 401(a)(9) of the Internal Revenue 

Code. For purposes of this Order, the eParticipant’s earliest retirement age 

shall be the earlier of (i) the date on which the participant is entitled to a 

distribution under the Plan, or (ii) the later of (I) the date the Participant 

attains age 50, or (II) the earliest date on which the Participant could begin 

receiving benefits under the plan if the Participant separated from service.

104 Appendix C
2. Shared Payment Approach

The Alternate Payee shall receive payments from the Plan of the 

benefits assigned to the Alternate Payee under this Order (including payments 

attributable to the period in which the eissue of whether this Order is a qualified 

domestic relations order is beign determined) commencing as soon as practicable 

after this Order has been determined to be a qualified domestic relations order 

or, if later, on the date the Participant commences receiving benefit payments 

from the Plan. Payment to the Alternate Payee shall cease on the earlier of: 

[insert date or future event, such as the Alternate Payee’s remarriage], or the 

date that payments from the Plan with respect to the Participant cease.

E. SAMPLE LANGUAGE FOR TREATMENT OF FORMER SPOUSE AS 

PARTICIPANT’S SPOUSE

Instruction: The Alternate Payee may be treated as the Participant’s spouse 

only if theAlternate Payee is the Particpant’s spouse or former spouse, and not 

if thee Alternate Payee is a child or other dependent of the Participant.

If the Alternate Payee is the Participant’s spouse or former spouse, drafters may 

select sample paragraph 1, sample paragraph 2, or sample paragraph 3. Sample 

paragraph 1 applies if the Alternate Payee is treated as the Participant spouse 

for all of the spousal survivor benefits payable with respect to the Participant’s 

benefits under the Plan. Sample paragraph 2 applies if the Alternate Payee is 

treated as the Participant’s spouse for a portion of the spousal survivor benefits 

payable with respect to the Participant’s benefits under the Plan. Sample 

paragraph 3 applies if the Alternate Payee is not treated as the Participant’s 

spouse for any of the spousal survivor benefits payable with respect to the 

Participant’s benefits under the Plan.

1. Alternate Payee Treated as Spouse For All Spousal Survivor 

Benefits

The Alternate Payee shall be treated as the Participant’s spouse under 

the Plan for purposes of § § 401(a)(11) and 417 of the Code.

2. Alternate Payee Treated as Spouse For a Portion of the Spousal 

Survivor Benefits

The Alternate Payee shall be treated as the Participant’s spouse under 

the Plan for purposes of § § 401(a)(11) and 417 of the Code with respect to 

[insert percentage of benefit or a formula, such as a formula describing the 

benefit earned under the plan during marriage].

3. Alternate Payee not Treated as Spouse

The Alternate Payee shall not be treated as the Participant’s spouse 

under the Plan.

Appendix C 105