Leaderboard

That amendment should merely clarify what the "Plan Administrator" meant when they requested the provision. This is not a Regulation, but merely a provision someone requested to be put into the plan. Many plans include a provision that states that "The Plan Administrator" has the responsibility for interpreting the plan's provisions. There was a court case once where participants challenged the meaning of a plan provision. When the courts ruled, they suggested that the plan could've been written to given the Plan Administrator the responsibility of interpreting the provision. So, the standard is not "the best" interpretation; it is merely a reasonable interpretation (e.g. not arbitrary and capricious). I could probably write a book on this, but want to illustrate this point: When a plan sponsor requests a provision to be included in a plan, that provision may not be articulated in the best manner. That doesn't change how the provision gets administered (i.e. you said Attribution but this is a common law state) as long as the interpretation is consistently applied (e.g. not changed after consider who is affected). When Congress changes the Code, we look to the IRS to issue Regulations (which is basically their interpretation and insight into how they plan to enforce that provision). This type of provision isn't like that. In such instance, you'd ask the plan sponsor what was meant when they wrote is and then write another amendment to merely clarify the meaning of the current provision. There was actually a court case where this was done and not considered to be 411(d)(6) violation because the new amendment was merely a clarification to an already existing provision that was poorly articulated. Good Luck!

I'm not sure there is enough information here. In a community property state, property can be owned separately, either because it was one spouses property before the marriage, or because it is treated as separate due to an agreement to treat it as such. Does she have 50% interest under CA law? If yes, then I would say she is not excluded. If no, then she is excluded. Either way, this is a perfect time to amend your plan language to remove any confusion