Leaderboard

The notice requirement was eliminated solely for the 3% (or 4%) safe harbor non-elective contribution, and solely for purposes of the ADP safe harbor. If you want to use a non-elective contribution to qualify for the ACP safe harbor - for example, you want to make a discretionary match that is not subject to the ACP test - then you still need the notice.

Agreed, you don't really have a terminated plan.

If you have a partial termination then everyone affected must be fully vested, and I believe that is everyone who terminated during the year. The reasoning: - people who terminated before an event (mass layoff, plant closing, sale of division, etc.) may have received forewarning and left to find a new job before being directly impacted. - people who terminated after an event may have been encouraged ("you're next") or saw writing on the wall, or thought the ship was sinking. There's never an issue saying you have a PT and fully vesting, whereas having IRS or DOL come in a year later after seeing 5500 filing and after forfeitures have been taken and applied can be a big hassle.

I would err on the side of caution and make then 100% vested. Unless there is something in the employee's file that said they quit voluntarily (like a resignation letter).

Yes. The IRS would say the plan wasn't really terminated and at least needs to maintain the document.

I agree with ESOP Guy, once you have a required beginning date, there is nothing that would allow you to stop or suspend RMDs merely because you were re-hired. Even though the RMD due 4/1/2021 was waived, it still counts as the RBD and RMDs would be required for 2021 and every year thereafter. The question becomes, is 2020 really a distribution calendar year? As CuseFan pointed out, if she terminated in 2020, it could only be a distribution calendar year if her date of birth was on or before 6/30/1949; otherwise her first distribution calendar year would be the later of when she turns 72, or retires. There is, unfortunately, no definition of "retires" in the regulations. If she was born on or before 6/30/1949 but, at the end of 2020, the employer reasonably expected her to return to work in a couple of months' time, I think you could argue that she did not retire, and therefore it would not trigger a RBD. This is not a terribly aggressive position in my opinion, but there is no official support for this stance either. If you want to play it on the safe side, have the employee take the distributions regardless.