MoJo

I would respectfully disagree. A "simultaneous death" doesn't mean at the same time or even for the same reason. In some cases, a "simultaneous death" occurs even if there is a gap of up to 30 days, if the deaths were the result of a common cause (i.e. a car accident that kills one instantly, and the other lingers for weeks before dying of injuries received). In other cases, the cause of the second death is irrelevant, if the deaths occur in close proximity (sometime days separated). The bottom line is, each state has it's own simultaneous death statutes that will define whether or no a simultaneous death exists give the facts - and each determination is very fact specific.

So, I still have questions. Has the C plan already been acquired? What are it's provisions concerning eligible employees, eligibility requirements and the like? Proper planning would included that the C plan covers only those who the employer wants included (and often we see this situation where - after the fact - the acquired plan covers "all employees of the employer" which now includes all of A's existing employees, and or those participating in B's plan. Employees may actually be eligible to participate in multiple plans, and not including them is an operational failure. I'm not the expert on testing issues, but once you figure out who is eligible for which plan, who is participating in which plan, and how the transition rule may apply (often the plan docs don't specify the transition rule applies), the testing is straightforward - albeit messy....

So the only "warranties" I've seen indicate that the platform options are "suitable" for retirement plans, but that the actual selection from those options, and their applicability to a specific plan, or a fiduciary function, and not covered under the warranty. For a service provider to be overly involved in that plan level selection process would essentially make them a fiduciary - and most absolutely deny fiduciary status, unless they have an investment arm, or provide (limited) 3(16) services (as we do). Otherwise, we are a "non-discretionary, directed, ministerial service provider."

Yes. Actually working through those issues in a different scenario. In any event, if the assets can't transfer in-kind, go to cash. We do that all the time when one of clients acquires another company with an existing plan.

No. The MEP would be a "successor plan" and since a successor plan exists, there is no distributable event from the existing plan. Easiest approach is to merge the existing plan into the MEP plan.

It's generally impossible, and we don't even try. We inform them that our records go back to when they transitioned to us, and no further back (and we have no ability to do so). In those situations, we tell the parties that they have to provide statements, or otherwise agree on a dollar amount for the split. If it ain't possible to do, the DRO is not a QDRO....

You've started in the right place - HERE! ASPPA's programs are great. The 401(k) answer book is helpful if you know what you are looking for. The ERISA Outline Book (and others), as well. Here, though, on Benefitslink.com you get PRACTICAL information. Real world issues, industry experts helping out (and not always agreeing - which is a good thing). To be successful in this industry you need a few things: 1) an appetite for playing in the "gray." Not everything has an answer supported by law, regs, case law, or other authority. Embrace it! 2) Step one is to train yourself to be an issue spotter. Plan sponsors are notorious for running amok. You have to know what's going on before you can be helpful. 3) Rely on others. NO ONE KNOWS IT ALL. I've been doing this for 40 years - and work with a team much younger than me - and I learn something new every day! I ask questions of them and others. I post here when I have something I need or "value" I think I can add. I will never stop learning, nor relying on others to add to my body of knowledge. Good luck, and see you on this board!

I look at this one step at a time. When uncle dies, plan assets go either per a beneficiary designation *or* if none, per the terms of the plan. I would guess that the spouse (aunt) is the bene under the terms of the plan - so those assets go to her - whether she exercise control over them or not. Uncles will is irrelevant. Only a valid beneficiary designation or the terms of the plan govern. So, when aunt died, assets go per her bene designation (if any) or per the terms of the plan - and uncle, uncle's estate, and uncles trust have no bearing on aunt's distribution of her interest in the plan. Aunt's representative (estate) or others would be entitled to those benefits - absent some fact not disclosed. The court has NO JURISDICTION over the plan assets until paid, and cannot direct those assets to be paid to the trust, and whether it is a pass-through is really irrelevant..

Yes, but only if the plan provides for anniversary date eligibility on-going (at least for part-timers). The problem with that is that the plan administrator must track eligibility computation periods potentially ending on 365 different days. None of our plan sponsors want to do that.

And I with your analysis. Pay particular attention to the section discussing off-calendar year plans - and based on doing it as the OP says, the IRS confirmed that an LTPT could have actually become eligible in 2023. It is specifically because of the flip from anniversary date to plan year that this occurs.... You use the normal eligibility computation period per the plan. If it flips to plan year, the OP is correct.

You got it.

That tells me that the furniture in the mobile home is not considered part of the residence for IRS purposes, and presumably the cost of such )non-fixture) furnishings would not be part of the calculation of the hardship amount.....

Years ago, we set up a DB plan for a pro boxer - with an NRA of 35.... The IRS puked all over that and insisted it was unreasonable - and demanded at least 50. We had no choice (nor appetite to sue) and went with 50. The problem with Peter's excellent analysis is that the prime earning years get diluted with lower earning in the "related" activities post boxing, and that requires an interesting formula to still provide desired benefits (not to mention funding gymnastics).

The answer is "yes." There is no requirement (anywhere) that the parties "agree" tot he terms of any order, including a DRO. The reason many do, in fact, acknowledge agreement by signing the order before the judge is because it makes it easy for the judge to issue the order. Absent agreement, there may have to be a hearing, or other arguments, as to what the order should contain. If both parties agree - then the judge presumes the order is consistent with the divorce decree/separation agreement.

Well, just to muddy these waters a bit. We are a recordkeeper and have multiple pre-approved documents for use by our clients (plan sponsors) Ever since EGTRRA, the IRS (or at least the reviewer of our 401(a)/401(k) document has MANDATED that the document contain language that PROHIBITS the deceleration of installments (including stopping them), once started, and has insisted on language that MANDATES that installments be calculated based on life expectancy at the time first taken (i.e. you can't setup installments for a fixed period of time (even if les than life expectancy). We argued, Relius says they argued (we are a major modifier of their docs) to no avail. The reviewer indicated that any flexibility would/could be a violation of the RMD rules, and therefore is not allowed (even though the RMD section clearly overrides any other distribution form, when required). Interestingly, there is no such provision in the 401(b) plan. Consequently, our document specifically precludes cessation of installments, and requires any change in installments to be a single lump sum of the balance (or arguably higher installment amounts - but that isn't clear.) Presumably, anyone else using the Relius document also has this provision - as it was in their off-the-shelf version before our modification. I think the IRS is full of it. Groom Law agrees with us, and since the reviewer is now retired, we intend to try again in the next (k) restatement. Unfortunately, we a re locked into what the document says, and even if allowed (as I believe it is), to do so would be failure to follow the terms of the document....