Leaderboard

It's so tiring telling people that we could have provided options if they had only consulted us prior to the transaction. The M&A attorneys should be sued for malpractice.

I wish I could "like" this twice. I refuse to make the client's problem my problem just because their team of attorneys didn't do their due diligence.

Without looking for citation, when there is a partial termination, your affected participant becomes 100% vested. It never goes down from that, so if rehired, he will continue at 100%.

Assuming the payout was correct in 2019, I don't see an issue. The 2019 RMD was done. The plan terminated as was converted into a DC account (an IRA) by 12/31/19. For 2020, the RMD would be determined based on DC rules using the 12/31/19 balance. The DB influence has disappeared. Since the 2020 RMD doesn't exist, no distribution needs to be made in 2020. Assuming they don't again change the rules, the 12/31/20 balance will be used to determine the RMD required for 2021. Does anybody see it differently? Larry.

Amen. I don't always click the "like" button but this was a YES, THAT comment. I'm sure the attorneys got paid well.

I'm going to cite this in my next footnote...

If it does not say, they can change/ re-enter anytime, amend the plan so that it does! The fact is, we have found, that participants don't do this as often when they know they can do it whenever.