Leaderboard

A restorative payment is not a § 415(c) annual addition. It’s enough that there was a “reasonable risk of liability for breach of a fiduciary duty[.]” You can read the whole clause here: 26 C.F.R. § 1.415(c)-1(b)(2)(ii)(C) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-1/subject-group-ECFR686e4ad80b3ad70/section-1.415(c)-1#p-1.415(c)-1(b)(2)(ii)(C). I wrote Treasury a comment that led to this rule.

Yes

Generally, you satisfy DB RMDs by commencing the benefit as an annuity, either single or joint life, unless the plan allows other options. If the plan allows a lump sum and participant so elects, then a portion of the lump sum will need to be parsed out for one or two year's worth of RMDs, depending when paid. The RMD portion can be determined as 12 or 24 annuity payments or considering the lump sum as a DCP balance and using DCP RMD methodology, which always (in my experience) leads to a lower RMD portion. If this is for an owner or HCE, the plan will need to be sufficiently funded to pay a lump sum.

hey, if she was living out of her car..... (How far has the IRS ruled, relative to what constitutes a principal residence along those lines? Can a principal residence be a van down by the river?)

Yes, the Treasury Department changed the 411(d)(6) protected benefit regulations during the first decade of this century. For forms of payment made to terminated employees, if a lump sum form of payment is allowed to defined contribution plan participants, the other forms of payment may now be eliminated. Of course, see the regulations for details.

Plan Doc, per 1.457-4(c)(1)(i)(B) and 1.457-2(g) you're looking at 100% of the individual's 415 comp for the taxable year, so you should be OK for nonelective at least.

I would agree with the previous commenters that 60 days after separation may well prove to be a very unreasonable amount of time to both hire the appraiser, have them visit the company and its operations, review its financials and the competitors in the industry and arrive at a final valuation amount. In some industries, there is a rule of thumb that is often applied in valuing certain businesses in that industry, such as average gross earnings over the the last 6 months or 20 times weekly net earnings. If there is such a rule of thumb applicable to that industry, maybe it is not unrealistic to expect the valuation to be completed and a value arrived at within 60 days of separation.

Many ESOP companies have a devil of a time with valuations in time for administrative needs, such as distributions, and the time mandates are more liberal than 60 days. However, valuation standards and practices for ESOPs are arguably more rigorous than would be required for nonqualified deferred compensation. Personally, I am somewhat cynical about valuations and what it takes to get a valid one for any particular purpose.