david rigby

Or maybe they mean 4-yr vesting? Or something else. If they do mean the 5%/250 hours as mentioned above, don't forget to describe the additional fee you will charge to administer it. At any rate, the suggestion above by @Bird is the correct approach.

IMHO, this phrasing does not touch the survivor benefit, and the ex-spouse remains entitled to the 75% survivor portion if the spouse survives the participant. Therefore, pay attention to the actual wording in the divorce decree. Better still, actual wording in anything that attempts to be a DRO.

Is this ownership thru a qualified ESOP?

The principle is (loosely summarized) that all compensation paid by the employer to the employee is deemed to be wages unless specifically excluded. You can read IRC section 3401(a), Note, for example, subsection (12) excludes amount paid for a qualified plan. Now you know where to look. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/3401

Before establishing "blame", it might be prudent to have an independent review of all statements. For example, the original post said, "processing error on the TPA side", and all subsequent comments have assumed that to be accurate. It might not be.

Ah well, some people think 1 out of 2 ain't bad.

... and please, use the correct spelling: counsel.

Here is the other post:

It's not a rollover. It's a transfer.

... or an employee became a participant and then the plan was frozen before that participant reached any service accrual.

Not "could file", but "did file".

Also advisable to avoid confusing terminology. Whenever I've seen this option, it has been labeled something like "contingent annuitant option", to distinguish from the ERISA-defined "joint and survivor annuity".

Duplicate post. See here:

Rather than worry about the participant count, someone should first determine whether this was a plan termination, or a plan merger. It cannot be both.

Might it also be possible that one or more of those boxes is completed incorrectly? Ask the question to the person who completed the form.

Run!

IMHO, these are your files. However, it may be prudent to send PDF copies anyway, stating that you are doing so for the client’s convenience, and are retaining your files. But, check your service agreement first.

This implies the EEs will be participating in the "new" plan on 05/01, but ... this might imply only employment status. The seller should have negotiated immediate participation; if not, someone dropped the ball.

Perhaps he should ask an actuary about a defined benefit plan.

Perhaps the custodian might exercise some common sense? Contact the sister, make sure she knows what's going on, and ask her to help get her brother to do something (e.g., disclaim, take a distribution, etc).

IRC 404(o)(1)

You can also ask the PBGC: https://www.pbgc.gov/sites/default/files/coverage-determination-instructions.pdf https://www.pbgc.gov/sites/default/files/coverage-determination-form.pdf

Respectfully, I disagree. This is a participant claim or looks like one. Claim procedures are part of every plan document. The Plan cannot avoid this by reeling in the DOL. Follow the document!

Ultimately, it is simple: The Plan (not the TPA/employer/anyone else) has a claim. Treat it as such, using the plan (and SPD) terms to respond. This is likely a case where the PA should engage an ERISA attorney for help/advice.

Quote the plan provision that prohibits such change.