david rigby

This is your first step.

Presumably, this sole proprietor is creating a DB plan to target the 415-maximum benefit. Is that correct? It's not clear to me why such plan would be a cash balance plan. Seems that a traditional DB plan design would be more appropriate. But maybe it's just me.

Maybe, but it's an uphill fight. To see several prior discussions on amending a QDRO, go to the Seach box above, type the word "amend", click the dropdown arrow to "This Forum", and hit your enter button.

To be precise, such "non-applicability" contains a pre-requisite. For example, IRC 411 (minimum vesting standards), see subsection (e)(1) for the governmental plan exemption. However, please keep reading: subsection (e)(2) includes the statement, "...if such plan meets the vesting requirements resulting from the application of sections 401(a)(4) and 401(a)(7) as in effect on September 1, 1974." Thus, ERISA exemption is conditioned on meeting pre-ERISA requirements. There are several other similar IRC sections.

See IRC 404(o)(3)

Don't overlook the possible explanation that the W-2 was issued because someone did not know the correct process. That might be the first problem to solve.

The applicable reg under IRC 411(d)(6) is 1.411(d)-3. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-1/subject-group-ECFR686e4ad80b3ad70/section-1.411(d)-3 Subsection (b)(3) mentions that "ancillary" benefits are not protected. Subsection (g)(2) defines "ancillary".

While your Q/topic is not addressed specifically in the Guidelines, it is possible your query could be interpreted in a way that looks like "price-fixing". Generally frowned upon here. Tread carefully.

Read the document. It may already have something to say about this.

Movement of assets has nothing to do with a short PY. If the plan merger occurs on 12/31/23, then: There is no Plan B one day later. ALL of the assets belong to Plan A immediately. There is no requirement to liquidate any of the Plan B assets.

I've seen, back when the RMD was based on 70-1/2, plans defining (as Peter states above) an RMD of 69-1/2. Although I'm unsure why, I think it was originally done to make sure they don't fail to comply with the 70-1/2 date. As I read it, there is no requirement to change to 72 or anything else.

I'm assisting in a plan merger of 2 DB plans (same sponsor), and preparing the IRS Form 5310-A. Line 5a requests an actuarial statement showing compliance with IRC 401(a)(12) and 414(L). Anyone willing to share information about the form and substance of such attachment?

Um, yes, they are aware, even if they don't admit it.

Hold on here. Is there an actuary at this "most uncooperative TPA"? If so, it may be worth noting this from the Actuarial Code of Conduct: PRECEPT 10. An Actuary shall perform Actuarial Services with courtesy and professional respect and shall cooperate with others in the Principal’s interest. I agree that you are not entitled to be the Filing Coordinator yet, but someone should provide you copies of previous forms that you may request. IMHO, this should not be ambiguous.

There is no passion like that of a functionary for his function. BTW, no one really thinks the IRS should be called "the Service".

Does this participant have any standing to "complain"? Is this participant making a "claim"? As Effen implies, there may be nothing to do, such that the question might be easily answered by providing a copy of the SPD (although it's possible the SPD is not specific enough), or (even better) provide the plan's definition of Spouse or definition of J&S.

At the risk of repeating myself, don't forget to re-read IRC 4980 to see the conditions that permit such a transfer.

If the owner starts paying the spouse, this sounds like a new employee on the payroll, which differs from "bringing the spouse into the plan".

Yeah, all the advice above. Just a hunch, Spidey-sense is tingling for ALL of the above commentators. Me too. It should for you as well. Something is not right.

Location (at least approximate)?

Don't forget to read the document.

Do you think the participant understands this? (In my observation, an emphatic NO.) If you think the answer is NO, then there may be some administrative responsibility to inform the participant.

Slow down just a bit. There might be multiple causes of this confusion. Is the current Plan Year in alignment with the 5500? If the PY begins 12/1, then you have incorrect 5500s. Is it possible the different dates apply to different plans? (eg, there was a prior acquisition or merger, or termination/restart).

What does the CBA say? What does the plan say? Just an opinion, but there might be some embarrassment at the union office for realizing they don't ALREADY have the relevant names and addresses. 🤨

One wonders if the "designers" of this program have thought about the non-discrimination issues. One also wonders if other aspects of the compensation package have been included in the planning (for example, vacation policy? are there stock options? is the timing of any bonus program relevant? flexible spending account? etc). I recommend two things: Learn more about early retirement programs by searching for prior discussions on these Message Boards, probably using a search term such as "early retirement window" or (even shorter) "window". Contact one (or more) of those with experience in such matter. As an aside, while this particular situation might not include a DB plan (just a guess), those who have the best/most experience in such matters are often pension actuaries, primarily because many of them have already thought thru these issues. It may also be useful to contact an ERISA attorney with such experience. Although I'm (mostly) retired, if you need a recommendation, I'll be glad to offer a few names.