david rigby

Agree with @Peter Gulia. More than a few years ago, that exact pattern happened to me: hired for a January 1 (Tuesday, holiday, office closed) start date, first hours worked on January 2 (Wednesday). But I was paid for the entire month, so the ER (wisely) treated me as employed on January 1.

Carol, thanks for all your contributions, on your webpage and on these Message Boards, as well as your standards of excellence. You will enjoy retirement!

The PA has no interest in the method of division, but (as @QDROphile correctly states) the PA can "refuse to do the math". Preferably, this condition is already stipulated in the plan's written QDRO procedures. You did review those procedures, didn't you?

The original poster could probably benefit from reading/re-reading the top-heavy statute, section 416 of the Internal Revenue Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title26-section416&num=0&edition=prelim and the regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/section-1.416-1. (Regs in Q&A format.)

Wow! Sounds like a scheme to skim off a fee. Why would the PA want to assist that? Never look for trouble.

A few thoughts (there are probably other relevant questions): Are the facts presented accurate? Are the facts presented complete? Did the buy-sell agreement contain any provisions relevant to the future of the plan? Did the buy-sell agreement alter (or attempt to alter) any plan provision of the A plan? Does A still exist or is it a wholly owned subsidiary of B? What does the A plan say about a distributable event? Does anyone in authority at B know what's going on? Has legal counsel for B made any statements about this?

I would think twice (thrice) before taking this assignment. The facts presented do not bode well for a good consultant/client relationship.

As I read the implications here: (1) the owner can afford to pay more into the plan, and (2) the 100% pay limit has not been reached. If my interpretation is accurate, the simplest way for the owner to accomplish his/her goal might be to amend the plan to unfreeze. Have I missed something?

Consider buying into an existing TPA? That is, look for a TPA that has an owner who might be retiring 5 years from now. Get legal advice from attorney with relevant experience.

"...take a lump sum..." implies there is a distributable event. Is there? By the way, the RMD at 4/1/26 is not based on the accrued benefit at 12/31/25, but on the AB at 12/31/24. (Of course, the participant can take more than the RMD.)

CFR? Really? You are stating/suggesting that the (missing) guidance is a regulation? Just a guess, I would expect it to be an administrative procedure. In writing.

I'm not so sure about that. For a one-participant plan, it should be very easy to increase the benefit (it's not already in pay-status, is it?). The increase does not have to absorb the entire amount of the excess funding; just do an amendment that increases the benefit by 5%, or 8% or whatever percent gets about 90% (for example) of the excess. Since 415 limit appears to be irrelevant, choose whatever increase you want. Assuming a lump sum payment that is rolled into participant's IRA, that "protects" more of the total dollars. Alternatively, if you put all the excess in QRP, the same protection does not apply, because it's not yet allocated, and might not be fully allocated for a few years. What happens if the participant dies six months after the transfer to QRP? Have I overlooked something?

We have seen mistakes in this area before, so I raise this question just as a caution. The lack of a named beneficiary does not, by itself, default to the estate. Virtually every plan will include a "line of succession" to determine a beneficiary, the last of which is the estate. So ... has the plan definition of Beneficiary been reviewed?

There have been several similar discussion threads, including when the interest/dividend payment was MUCH later than a few days. As I recall, at least one such discussion involved payment from a litigation settlement, months after the supposed close-out date. Before taking any action, a prudent PA/fiduciary might make sure there is no possibility of another payment.

Maybe I'm just being picky. If the vendor uses the term "solo-K", is it time to find another vendor?