Leaderboard

What does the plan document say? It likely says the spouse at the time of death is the 100% beneficiary unless such spouse has provided written, witnessed consent to waive that right. Meaning, the remarriage likely makes the new spouse the 100% beneficiary regardless of the prior designation. However, you need to check the terms of the plan document.

The participants have the right if it's in the document. The document either needs to be amended to remove the option or the employer needs to find new service providers.

On erisapedia.com/webcasts/ there is a recorded webcast called, "Pass the Catch-Up". I believe it is free for anyone to watch. Derrin Watson goes through a really detailed example of an off-calendar plan year dealing with 402(g), 401(a)(30), catch-up, ADP refunds... If I remember, that example is towards the end of the presentation if you wanted to skip through.

Ananda, assuming you don't want to buck a Revenue Ruling, I think Rev. Rul. 2019-19 settles the issue for you on whether you can cancel the uncashed check and start over. Can't. Says the individual is taxable. I think the only gray area would be if the participant had moved, not received the check, or something like that. You can argue that Rev. Rul. 2019-19 relies on traditional notions of "constructive receipt," i.e. taxpayer can't turn his/her/their back on income.

I would disagree here. In a DC plan the forfeitures are going to be used for one of two things: 1) Reallocated as a contribution. Even a reduce plan it could effect the other participants. A lot of companies decide what they want their cost to be. Less forfeitures to reduce means their cost goes up. In a reduce plan it is possible for the forfeitures simply reduce the cost to the employer but it isn't 100%. 2) Pay expenses. Once again less forfeitures and the expenses are going to be paid by the other participants. In short in a DC plan for a source that is subject to vesting, which is always an ER source, less forfeitures can often times harm the other participants.

Still calendar-based, so one could do all 19,500 in the second half of 2021 and all 20,500 in the first half of 2022 to hit a total of 40,000 in non-catchup deferrals all within the same plan year.

No. A rollover may have unrestricted distribution rights. There is no distributable event, so under no circumstances can this be a rollover. We map the account over as if it were a spin-off from plan A and merger into Plan B. If the plans aren't (substantially) identical, this can be problematic...

I agree with the comments to the effect that a plan-to-plan transfer is the appropriate vehicle, and given the design, unless there is some material difference between the plans that is not described, someone did not do their job if the plan documents do not already provide for transfers of this sort.

1. I'm entirely not sure about ASG but I think you're right. 2. Yes, plan 1 would be a multiple employer plan. 3. Correct, you could permissively aggregate except for Company A2 which is not part of CG. 4. I'm not a fan of the strategy but know people in this forum who see it or do it all the time. I think a detailed cost/benefit analysis should be done in terms the audit cost savings (or simply the overall cost of administering one "large" plan) versus the (total) cost of maintaining two separate plans. Also, in the restaurant industry there is often high turnover, so each plan would need to properly manage the timing of paying out vested terminations to avoid future participant count surprises.

It's not a distributable event - so it's not rollover - which requires a distribution. If the document(s) are silent, then it can't happen. We have plans like this that provide specifically for a trust to trust transfer (but usually they are from union to non-union plans). Also, keep in mind, that if the transfer doesn't happen and the participant has balances in both plans, then the participant count for audit purpose may need to be considered...

If the document doesn't say that then the plan sponsor has a bigger problem.

The documents will govern ongoing eligibility, that is, for which plan is the person an eligible employee. There is no basis for a distributable event, so a trustee to trustee transfer of the existing plan account is the only way to move money - but both plan documents should have provisions to support that action in the event of a participant relocation/transfer. Unless this was a frequent occurrence I do not see a problem in doing this, provided the plan documents support.

Isn't this the type of situation where we need to ask if there are any minor children? And can't remember if it mattered if they are in a community property state. If/when new pension legislation gets signed that could all be moot anyway, so she may be good to go in 2023 regardless.

You say that you "retired." If you were at the Plan's Normal Retirement age, you may be fully vested. Check with your prior Employer.

That's the participant's problem. S/he can rollover the net or make up the amount withheld (or anything in-between) and then when they file their tax return receive a credit for the amount withheld. Still not the plan's/service provider's issue....

1) Yes, asking for an over payment is a legal requirement of the plan. They are required to protect all participants and those funds will most likely benefit the other participants in the plan. 2) If the shares are in an IRA there shouldn't be a taxable event. The harder part is you need to make sure you do NOT get a 1099-R for the money being sent back to the plan. I would ask the plan to write a letter to the IRA company to help convince them they need to send the money back to the plan without a 1099-R being issued. This is most likely going to be the hardest part for you. The IRA company will not like sending money out of an IRA without a 1099-R being issues. But this isn't unheard of so they should have a procedure. The question is does the person helping you know what it is? 3) The money in the IRA is not a qualified rollover so it can't stay in the IRA. Hope that helps.