Bird

That's a key detail. I still find that language unusual, but it seems to clearly state that the granddaughter was entitled to half. I think they have to try to get half back from the son - good luck with that. I'm always curious about these types of posts - what is your role here?

I agree with prior posts. I think it is highly unlikely the granddaughter is entitled to anything. In the absence of a named beneficiary, the plan has a beneficiary under default provisions. It's not like this is a gray area; it is simply a matter of reading the plan provisions to see who the beneficiary is. That is typically going to be spouse, otherwise children, otherwise the estate. (as fmsinc notes, there may be a longer list; it might even be shorter, as in - spouse, otherwise estate). The only way the granddaughter gets anything is if she is the daughter of a deceased child (i.e. not the son's daughter) and the plan says that the benes are "issue per stirpes" (i.e. per branch of the family tree) but I've never ever seen that in a default. (All right, I suppose the plan designation could be "estate" and it is possible the granddaughter is is entitled to something under the will or intestate laws.) I repeat, this is not mysterious/subject to discretion/gray area.

No, I think you are correct.

So you're saying that Company A should allow the former Company B employees to contribute to the B plan from their A compensation? No, I don't think so. (I think) the transition rules are for a scenario where A buys B and B continues payroll.

How did they overdeposit if they use individual accounts? (American Funds does not have "brokerage" accounts, unless it is through a different brokerage account.)

I agree that the TPA should not be providing investment advice, but there's potentially* a lot more non-investment advice to be provided, other than "you need to get a bigger bond." If that's all you say then the advisor will tell the sponsor that you said it is ok and it only costs a little bit more for bonding, and they'll buy it and then you and they have to deal with the other issues - liquidity, valuation, etc. *If this is a publicly-traded REIT then our typical concerns about real estate may not apply.

We work in different worlds. My exposure to larger plans is minimal, but being exposed to the mindset in some transitions, I have been somewhat confused and amazed at how the big recordkeepers will coordinate on "important" stuff like moving money, even including getting investment elections to port over, but other stuff that I would see as just as important (as you note, bene designations) are an afterthought at best. "They are maintained by the employer." Yeah right.

Cross that bridge when I come to it.

I think beneficiaries are determined at the time of death, and then obviously (?!) can't be changed. I mean, the decedent obviously couldn't change them after the fact, and I don't see how a plan provision change could change them. I don't have any doubt. Forget about the corrective distributions that are triggering this. Let's say someone dies Jan 1, 2022, with no spouse, and with kids. In this scenario, the kids are the beneficiaries. Let's say they take RMDs for a year and then ask for the rest of the money, but the plan has been changed so the default is the estate. It makes no sense to me that the bene would actually change. (Or carry out RMDs for 3, 4, 5 or more years...no way would I change anything about those RMDs or other payments mid-stream.) FTW defines beneficiary as follows (my emphasis): "Beneficiary" means the person(s) entitled to receive benefits, under Section 7.04 of the Plan, upon the Participant's death. (Not "two years after the participant's death" or whatever.) I think there is something about the way this was phrased that is making you all fuzzy.

I haven't done it in a while buy I think there is 1099-R coding for a refund of an Excess Contribution that will indicate it is not taxable.

yes We haven't filed for many, many years. If you have a pre-approved document, and keep it up to date, then there should be no problem with the language. And getting an FDL does not protect you from being audited on the plan's operation. IMO, they have raised the fees to a point where they are essentially saying "don't bother us."

That's a fair question and valid point, and maybe why they can "get away with it." Of course that means that ABC Company's plan, with a plan but not payroll services, is subsidizing MNO Company with both plan and payroll, and XYZ Company with only payroll service.

I think it is black and white. The plan is subsidizing the company. Kind of ironic that these same companies will push fiduciary liability insurance for a few extra basis points ("you want fries with that?") and then do something so blatantly wrong that puts the fiduciary at risk.

Yeah, I kinda feel like this has to be enforced at the front end. If not...shrug.

They are separate animals, but both vehicles for getting money into an IRA(s) - with different documents and different accounts. A SEP has optional contributions so you can just stop making contributions, and set up a new SIMPLE. There is a general prohibition on making SIMPLE contributions in the same year as any other plan, except when you start a SH 401(k), but that doesn't seem to apply here. I don't understand the question about "still" contributing to the SIMPLE when that is the new plan.

I put it in Retirement Plans in General. FWIW I don't even notice what forum things are in because I use My Activity Stream. I agree, this depends on the document(s). If this is set up with participation agreements, so it is effectively separate plans, no problem (subject to testing). If it is set up as one plan with adopting employers, then not so easy; you'd need each participant in their own group.

...and you probably know that you probably need an authorization; sometimes you can fax it to them while on the line, or else have the trustee/owner on the line as well. No fun at all, except to the extent that you get satisfaction in doing things right and doing other folks' jobs.

No, not what I said or meant.

I always assumed that controlled group rules apply. I imagine using a different name or ID number would make it easier to "get away with" but...

FTW will still do 1099s after the deadline, I think it might cost more but well worth it. At least that's what I remember. I have done the red forms for personal stuff (1099-MISC) and...what a pain, trying to get it lined up.

Well, no. I was trying to say that the wife/participant (actually the attorney) does not want to have to ask the husband to sign a waiver naming someone else as the beneficiary. Or the husband refuses.

Well, the attorney represents the participant (wife), and she (the attorney) basically thinks "the husband signed off in the MSA so why do we have to also get him to sign off on the bene des?" The whole thing started when I got a request from the wife saying "please change all my bene designations to "In trust for my son William XXXX" (yes that is all - no "trust created xx/xx/xxxx" or any kind of details). Apparently she got that language from the attorney, which was shockingly inadequate. I would think that these family attorneys would have more knowledge of pension law or at least know how to write a bene des since it tends to be such a big part of what they are doing, but I digress. Thanks for the comments; much appreciated. I learned something in doing the research and from the replies.

Husband and wife are getting a divorce and have a signed Marital Settlement Agreement saying they each waive their rights to any retirement plan of the other. Plan has J&S provisions. My understanding is that the MSA is not enforceable by the plan itself - that is, the plan would have to pay the husband if wife died before their divorce was final (which should be soon so this is a bit of a theoretical question, we hope). Putting it more clearly perhaps, the plan could not recognize a bene designation for anyone other than the husband unless he specifically signed a plan waiver; the plan cannot look at the MSA and say that is a satisfactory waiver. My "research" (a quick google search) seems to imply that without a plan waiver, the plan would have to pay the husband, but then the estate could seek to recover assets from the husband since he had waived his rights. But the plan itself cannot recognize the MSA. That last part is what I've always thought. Getting a little pushback from the attorney and wanted to double-check here; thanks in advance.

That's what I would do. I think others might disagree but it's pretty harmless.

It's a loan. What do you propose calling it that would not lead to discussions like this? I'm not exactly sure what is wrong with "this sort of discussion thread."