Leaderboard

Very likely, the Plan will consider this as two separate events (who wouldn't?). In such case, the marriage event causes an automatic change of beneficiary to the spouse. The divorce might (check the plan document) automatically invalidate the beneficiary designation, but such provision is not required. Do two things: (1) read the document, and (2) get the participant to submit a new beneficiary form. Don't look for ways to cut corners, esp when the solution is so simple.

You can exclude Company B because they are all HCEs. You can always exclude HCEs without failing coverage. Again, make sure the document reads correctly. In some documents, you have to choose to exclude compensation from a related employer whether or not it has adopted the plan as a participating employer. Now if Company B had a plan and was trying to exclude Company A, THEN you would fail the coverage test.

ERISA requires that the plan administrator follow the plan documents and pay plan benefits to the beneficiary as determined under the plan. Thus, the determination of who is entitled to benefits under a plan as the beneficiary of a deceased participant depends on the plan's terms. Without knowing the language of the plan, I do not believe anyone can accurately respond to your question. The responders above all have solid questions and thoughts but without the terms of the plan each is responding with hypos or using assumptions. Note Peter Gulia's response contains "One imagines", "If so," "Many plans," "and no QDRO" with his ultimate conclusion being a question. You state that "The plan provides that a spouse must consent to an alternate beneficiary designation." If, for example, the plan uses typical wording such as "Any designation by a married Participant of a Beneficiary other than the Participant’s spouse will not be valid unless the Participant’s spouse consents in writing to such designation (which consent acknowledges the effect of such designation, the identity of any non-surviving spouse Beneficiary, including any class of Beneficiaries and contingent Beneficiaries, and is witnessed by a member of the Plan Administrator or a notary public)..., " then a conservative reading of this type of language would be that the 1988 beneficiary designation is invalid because, upon the new marriage (after the filing of the 1988 designation), the Participant's new spouse did not consent in writing to the prior designation (even if a prior spouse had consented to the designation). Like Peter G... not advice (just thoughts)

I guess they don't update the website either anymore? Nothing updated for 2024. I'm up for 2025. I assume they still do renewals? https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/maintain-your-enrolled-retirement-plan-agent-status

For the discretionary match to also be ACP SH, like Artie said, it has two independent constraints: The discretionary match piece cannot match on deferrals on over 6% of plan comp. Also, the total dollar amount of the match awarded cannot be more than 4% of comp. So, your discretionary match could be 66 2/3% of deferrals up to 6% of pay. It satisfies both of those conditions.

If the money left the plan and went to rollover IRAs, someone needs to generate a 1099. Who did the 1099s for all the rest of the participants? They would likely do these 6 as well.